NANDALAL ADHIKARI Vs. DIPAK KUMAR BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under sec. 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dtd. 6/7/2017 of the State Commission in appeal no. 594 of 2016 arising out of the Order dtd. 23/5/2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 131 of 2003.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist (the 'complainant') and for the respondents (the 'opposite parties') and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dtd. 23/5/2007 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dtd. 6/7/2017 of the State Commission and the petition.

(3.) The revision has been filed with reported delay of 123 days. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant is a poor farmer, he is conducting his case pro bono. The advocate who conducted his case before the State Commission also did it pro bono, some natural time was taken in collecting the relevant papers by liaising from New Delhi with the complainant as well as the advocate in West Bengal. He requests that the delay be condoned.