MOTIA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. CAPTAIN BHAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the Foras below against him has preferred this revision petition. The revision petition has been filed after the expiry of period of 90 days with a delay of 140 days as per the petitioner and 125 days as per the computation done by the registry. The petitioner has thus moved an application for condonation of delay.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. Actually after the State Commission passed the impugned order, the Director of company decided to approach the National Commission against the impugned order and they also decided to amicably resolve the matter with the respondent/complainant. In this regard certain meetings were also conducted but when the negotiations failed in the month of December, 2014 the petitioner approached his counsel for legal opinion. The counsel requested petitioner to provide the record for drafting the revision petition but the record was lying with Shri Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate who was representing the petitioner before the State Commission. Shri Arun Kumar Batra provided that record in February, 2015. Thereafter, the revision petition was drafted and filed.

(3.) THE above explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory for the reason that it is bereft of the details. The petitioner has not specified the dates on which the Directors of the company met with the complainant to amicably resolve the matter. Otherwise also, if the Directors have taken decision to challenge the order of the State Commission, the petitioner should have filed the revision petition within the stipulated period of limitation. Further, the petitioner has tried to explain the delay after December, 2014 by taking a stand that the record of the case was not available as it was lying with Shri Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate who was representing the petitioner in the State Commission. No explanation has been given why the petitioner kept on sleeping over the matter and did not make any endavour to collect the record from the previous counsel if the Directors had already taken decision to file revision petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the explanation particularly when the petitioner is a service provider and he by using the financial clout is trying to delay the fruits of concurrent findings of Foras below to the respondent/complainant. The law relating to the condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed as under: