H.M. MARDIKAR AND ORS. Vs. BODHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioners heard. There is a delay of 726 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The State Commission dismissed the First Appeal because there was a delay of 196 days. Warning bells should have rung while approaching this Commission. But such a huge delay is clearly indicative of negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of Dr. H.M. Mardikar and Dr. N.V. Deshpande, the petitioners in this case.

(2.) THE petitioners have moved an application for condonation of delay. It is explained that the petitioners engaged Sh. Tayade, Advocate to contest this case before the District Forum. He did not file the appeal. This fact came to the knowledge of the petitioners, when the complainant filed an application U/s. 27 and the petitioners received the said notice. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to Mr. S.M. Ukey, Advocate, who filed the appeal. The said appeal also went unrepresented. Mr. Dage, Proxy Advocate for Sh. Ukey asked for time, which was not granted. Mr. Dage, Proxy Counsel was heard and the case was dismissed. The petitioners were not aware to this fact. They came to know about this fact when they received notice on 23.02.2015, wherein the petitioners were required to appear before the District Forum on 12.03.2015. Due to busy schedule, the petitioners could not remain present in the morning hours. In their absence, the warrants were issued. The petitioners arrived in the second half of the session when the new developments transpired. They came to know that their appeal was decided on 01.02.2013. They moved application for cancellation of warrant. They alleged that their advocates are not attending the Court deliberately. It is prayed that the delay should be condoned.

(3.) AS there is a huge delay, therefore, the petitioners have failed to constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition. Their application itself goes to show that they approached the Court in a lackadaisical manner. They have neither respect for the Court and arrogantly did not appear in the first session of the Commission. Counsel for the petitioners has admitted that no effort was made to take any action against their advocates, namely, Mr. Tayade, Mr. S.M. Ukey and Mr. Dage. The story put forward by the petitioners is not credit -worthy. All the Advocates in this country cannot be so negligent. This has become a fashion and is nothing but a ruse to put the blame on the advocates to make sure to save the limitation period. It is also quite possible that such like pleas can be the after thoughts of the persons/Advocates, who are involved in this case. Day to day delay was never explained. The case is hopelessly barred by time and following authorities neatly dovetail with this view.