LAWS(NCD)-2012-10-98

A V SREEDHARAN Vs. M V NARAYANAN

Decided On October 17, 2012
A V Sreedharan Appellant
V/S
M V NARAYANAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 80 days in filing this revision petition. The delay has been explained in Para 4 of the application, moved for condonation of delay which is reproduced as follows:

(2.) in the case of Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. v. Gargi Basak, 2008 1 CPJ 134(NC), it was stated that the appellant pursuing the matter bona fide in Calcutta High Court and time spept in disposing of Writ Petition should be excluded. This Court rejected this plea and it was held that one does not have to go to the High Court to be told that appeal lies against the impugned order of the State Commission to the National Commission. It is also clear that in the instant case that the writ was not pursued deliberately, which was dismissed for defult. There is no evidence that the petitioner had pursued this case diligently. This a delaying tactic. Consequently, the appeal is barred by time. This view finds support from the following authority.

(3.) In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63(SC), it has been held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.