LAKHIMPUR FINVEST COMPANY LTD Vs. MOHAMMAD MUSLIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow dated 21.09.2012 vide which the first appeal filed by the service provider was dismissed for non-prosecution. The revision petition has however, been filed after the expiry period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 911 days. The petitioner has moved an IA no. 3952 of 2015 for condonation of delay.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing the revision petition was unintentional and it had occurred because the petitioner was unaware of the dismissal of his appeal for non-prosecution. It is further argued that even the absence of the petitioner on the relevant date of hearing before the State Commission was unintentional as the petitioner or his counsel could not appear on the said date because the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner had wrongly noted the date of hearing.

(3.) Before adverting to the explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the revision petition, it would be useful to have a look at the salient features of this case.