VINOD KUMAR PATEL Vs. SAMBIT KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent, Sh. Vinod Kumar Patel, only on the ground that there was inordinate delay of 8 months and 19 days in preferring the appeal as against 30 days. Aggrieved by that order the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. Although he has not filed the application for condonation of delay which was moved before the State Commission, yet, the same is apparent from the order of the State Commission. The stand taken by the petitioner is reproduced below:

(3.) WE have heard Counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above said facts in support of his case. We are not impressed by these submissions. It is apparent that the petitioner was aware of all the proceedings as back as on 2.6.2011. The explanation given by him for condonation of delay does not in any way constitute the sufficient cause as described in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It goes to prove negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner. It is the duty of the litigant to keep himself informed about the day -to -day proceedings. The litigants are not supposed to depend merely on their Advocate for a long period of 8/9 months. No fault can lie at the doors of the Advocate. On the contrary, it appears that Sh. Sambit Kumar Das informed him by giving a notice dated 2.6.2011, wherein, the then prevalent position of the proceedings were informed.