HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KARAMVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision against the order dated 12.12.2005 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 20.3.2003 of a District Forum for want of deposit of requisite amount under the Second Proviso to Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner/opposite party authority has filed application for condonation of 197 days delay in filing revision. It is alleged that the certified copy of the order of State Commission dated 12.12.2005 was delivered to the lawyer of the petitioner at Chandigarh on 3.1.2006. Counsel of the petitioner received papers from the Board on or around 19.5.2006 and by that time the period of limitation for filing revision was already over. Revision was drafted but the clerk of the Counsel dumped the file under a heap of other files in the office and despite of best efforts he could not trace it out. It was presumed that file to have been lost. Clerk of Counsel went to his hometown in Uttaranchal and came back after 1 months some time in September 2006. After thorough checking the file was discovered by the clerk on 9.10.1996 and thereafter this revision has been filed. Revision petition was filed along with application of condonation and affidavit of the clerk on 17.10.2006 in the Registry. To be noted that by the time the Counsel of petitioner received the papers on or around 19.5.2006 the prescribed period for filing revision petition was already over. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the application for that delay. As stated in application, the Counsel of petitioner presumed the file has been lost. Application does not disclose what steps were taken by the Counsel for making available the copy of Order of State Commission and other documents to enable him to draft and file the revision petition. Further, explanation of the clerk of Counsel having kept the file under a heap of other files and file having been traced out on 9.10.2006 does not inspire confidence. Application, thus, does not disclose sufficient cause to condone the delay in question. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Revision petition too is dismissed as barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.