HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT Vs. ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana Panchkula dated 20.12.2011 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the order of the District Forum Panchkula which reads as under:

(2.) THE revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of 90 days of period of limitation as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 with the delay of 112 days as per the Registry and 108 days as per the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay. The explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition is given in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay which is reproduced thus:

(3.) LD . Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is a government organization and it has nothing to gain by filing the revision petition. It is further argued that petitioner has a strong case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner would suffer grave injustice. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Nagaland V. Lipok Ao, 2005 3 SCC 752, Bhag Singh and Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh and Ors., 1987 Supp1 SCC 685and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 7 SCC 123.