HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAMLESH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter to be referred as HUDA) seeks condonation of delay, which initially was put as 114 days in filing this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No.359 of 2001. The application seeking condonation of delay supported with an affidavit of Shri Harish Chander Jain, H. C. S. , Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar was placed on record. After examining the affidavit of Shri Harish Chander Jain, it was found that the number of days for which the delay was sought to be condoned was left blank, which was encircled with pencil. This affidavit also did not disclose the date when the certified copy of the judgment and order appealed against was received in the office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula.

(2.) Since the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay lacked details, the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate sought time to file a better affidavit giving particulars about the date when the certified copy of the impugned order was received and the grounds, which caused the delay. Eventually Shri Satbir Singh, H. C. S. Secretary, HUDA, Panchkula filed his affidavit for and on behalf of the Chief Administrator, HUDA wherein the date of the receipt of the copy of the order appealed against was disclosed as 28.10.2003. The certified copy had been personally obtained by the Counsel for HUDA Mrs. Suraksha Sharda, Advocate who by her letter sent the same to the appellant. The appellant was thus in the know of the order of the District Forum appealed against as it received the certified copy on 28.10.2003 and thus the period of limitation of 30 days for filing the appeal commenced w. e. f.29.10.2003 and it expired on 27.11.2003. The appeal was in fact actually filed on 21.2.2005. The delay occurred in filing the appeal is of a period of 447 days.

(3.) The notice of the application seeking condonation of delay was sent to the respondent who put in appearance through Mr. B. B. Mittal, Advocate. Reply to the application seeking condonation of delay was filed.