SANTOSH SAINI Vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 500 days in filing this Revision Petition. However, it is surprising that the petitioner has not mentioned the number of days. The Registry has wrongly reported that there is delay of 58 days. Registry is hereby warned and directed to file explanation about the same till Monday, i.e., 18.05.2015.

(2.) The impugned order was passed on 09.10.2013. The delay has been explained in Para No. 2 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced here as under:-

(3.) The excuse put forward by the petitioner is fragile. Such like stories can be created at any time. It does not go to satisfy this Commission. Day-to-day delay was not explained. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting the excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act and C.P. Act. The following authorities apply to this view to a hair. Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 , R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari,2009 1 CutLT 188 , Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012].