ANANDA GHOSH Vs. DEBSISHU NURSING HOME PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is present through his learned Advocate. The O. P.1 is present through the learned Advocate, Mr. Seal. O. Ps.5 and 6 are not present. Under such circumstances, when the complainant and the O. P.1 are present and ready to proceed with the case, let the case be taken up for hearing in the absence of O. P. Nos.4, 5 and 6. It may be mentioned here that as regards the O. Ps.2 and 3, the complainant has submitted that since the O. P.1's learned Counsel has stated (vide the order of the Commission dated 27.5.2002) that as there is no person in the name of O. P.2 or O. P.3, he is not willing to proceed against these two O. Ps. and their names may be expunged from the cause list and to this effect he may be allowed to file an amendment petition of the cause list.

(2.) Later, the learned Advocate for the O. Ps.5 and 6 are present. But the O. P.4 is absent on repeated calls. Heard the arguments of all the learned Advocates with regard to the petition for condonation of delay.

(3.) The complaint appears to have been filed on 15.9.1999 and the cause of action in respect of the O. P.1 appears to have arisen on 8.10.1996 while the cause of action in respect of the O. Ps.5 and 6 appears to have arisen on 2.1.1997 as per the averments in the complaint itself. So far as the O. P.1 is concerned, the complaint has been filed after two years 11 months approximately and so far as the other O. Ps. are concerned, the complaint has been filed about nine months after expiry of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. When the hearing commences, the learned Advocates for O. P. Nos.1, 5 and 6 draws our attention to the fact that they have not been served with any copy of the condonation petition which was filed about 4 years back. At this stage, the complainant is directed to give a copy of the said petition to each of two learned Advocates for the O. Ps. at once. After perusing this petition both the learned Advocates strongly opposed the prayer for condonation on the ground that in this petition there has been no whisper of explanation of the delay, far less, satisfactory explanation. Secondly, it is contended by them that under the provisions of Sec.24a of the C. P. Act which are mandatory in nature there has been a requirement that the Commission or the Forum as the case may be, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose and under sub-section it has been laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after that period, if the complainant satisfies the Commission or the Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the Commission or the Forum as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay. The learned Lawyers contend that this being the language of the provisions regarding limitation the Commission must ensure that sufficient explanation of the delay has been offered by the complainant while filing the complaint at such a belated period and the provisions should not be allowed to be dealt with lightly.