PADMAIAH VUPPU PROPRIETOR Vs. T.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed application for restoration of revision alongwith application for condonation of delay.

(2.) Petitioner submitted that this Commission vide order dated 31.5.2012, issued notice to all the respondents in revision petition subject to depositing Rs. 10.00 lakhs with the Commission and Rs. 10,000/- to each of the respondents for litigation expenses by way of bank draft. On 16.7.2012, Petitioner deposited Rs. 10.00 lakhs with this Commission and on 7.8.2013, Commission granted two weeks' time to pay Rs. 10,000/- to each of the respondents. On account of non-compliance of the order for payment of litigation expenses, revision petition was dismissed by order dated 25.9.2013. It was, further, submitted that drafts of Rs. 10,000/- have been prepared for six respondents on 22.7.2014 and for two respondents on 5.8.2014, hence, revision petition be restored. Alongwith this application, petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that petitioner was not in touch with his Advocate at New Delhi. It was, further, submitted that Advocate intimated to the petitioner by letter, but, it returned back on account of "insufficient address". The Advocate also tried to contact petitioner on telephone, but, telephone of the petitioner was switched off and ultimately, Advocate at New Delhi contacted Advocate at Bangalore who referred the matter. After sometime, Advocate at Bangalore intimated to Petitioner about dismissal of revision petition. It was, further, submitted that on account of summer vacations, Advocate at New Delhi was out of station who came back on 2.7.2014 and after that drafts were prepared, hence, delay in filing restoration application be condoned.

(3.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.