CHANDRIKA DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTION Vs. ALKA NARAYAN BELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 28.01.2009, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the District Forum dated 03.10.2007 was dismissed in default and non -appearance of the petitioners. Since there is a delay of about 5 years and 10 months in filing the revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has also been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners in the application is that they were advised to file a miscellaneous application before the State Commission itself for restoration of their appeal and the said application came to be dismissed by the State Commission only on 11.01.2012. As regards the delay post -11.01.2012, the case of the petitioners as stated by their counsel is that initially they contacted a local Advocate for challenging the order of the State Commission before this Commission, but the said local Advocate told them that he was not taking up the matters to be filed before National Commission and referred them to other Advocates. Thereafter the petitioners contacted those Advocates, who told the petitioners that they had filed the revision petition, but in fact they had not done so.

(3.) THE petitioners have not placed on record any affidavit or even the certificate from the Advocate who allegedly advised them to file a miscellaneous application before the State Commission seeking restoration of the appeal which the State Commission had dismissed on 28.01.2009. The legal position in this regard has been well settled for quite some time and therefore the counsel of the petitioners before the State Commission would be aware that the State Commission does not have a jurisdiction to recall an earlier order dismissing an appeal in default. Be that as it may, even if I presume that the petitioners were acting bonafide and were not merely seeking to prolong the matter by filing the miscellaneous application before the State Commission for restoration of the appeal which had been dismissed in default on 28.01.2009, there is hardly any explanation for the delay between 11.01.2012, when the State Commission dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners and 12.02.2015, when this revision petition eventually came to be filed.