PRAGATI MORESHWAR DOLASKAR Vs. VEDPATHAK & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for petitioner present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 610 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para no. 2 of the application for condonation of delay, which runs as under: -

(2.) WE have perused the certified copy of the impugned order, which clearly, specifically and unequivocally goes to show that the copy was supplied on 17.12.2012. The counsel for petitioner submits that the copy was not received by him. It does not appear to be true stand taken by the petitioner. There is a huge delay. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act. This view, neatly dovetails with the following authorities. In 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 and Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 .

(3.) THE latest view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also does not go to help the petitioner. The latest view was taken by the Apex Court in the case "Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.", decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.