ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAUPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONG with revision petition, petitioner has filed application purporting to be under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing petition. It is alleged that the State Commission passed the order in Appeal No. 256/04 filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 19.4.2005. Mr. Manoj Kohli and Gurdyal Singh were the Counsel representing the petitioner and respondent No. 2 before the State Commission. Mr. Kohli obtained the certified copy of order dated 19.4.2005 on 23.5.2005 only on behalf of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed review application through Mr. Kohli which was dismissed on 30.7.2006 by the State Commission. Petitioner did not receive any notice in review application. It was further alleged that in execution proceedings, the petitioner came to know for the first time on 6.11.2006 that appeal had been dismissed. Thereafter certified copy of State Commission's order was obtained on 7.11.2006. Between 15.11.2006 to 20.12.2006 the petitioner had suffered major problem in his eyes due to which he could not meet the Counsel for the purpose of drafting of revision petition. It is prayed that delay in filing petition may be condoned. We have heard Mr. Jainender Kumar Chumliak for the petitioner.

(2.) CERTIFIED copy of aforesaid order dated 19.4.2005 is at pages 13 to 17. Endorsement by the Registry of the State Commission made on the last page thereof would show that the first copy of the order was delivered by hand on 21.4.2005 and duplicate copy of order was supplied on 7.11.2006 to the petitioner. Petitioner having been delivered first copy of State Commission's order on 21.4.95, cannot be heard to say that he came to know of the State Commission's order for the first time in execution proceedings on 6.11.2006. Obviously, by the time the duplicate copy of the order was applied and issued to the petitioner the period of limitation of 90 days for filing revision had already expired. Filing of review application by respondent No. 2 has no relevance whatsoever in this case. Application is dismissed as not disclosing sufficient cause to condone the delay in question. Revision petition too is dismissed as barred by limitation. Review Petition dismissed.