TEHSILDAR SALES HISAR Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the orders dated 22.5.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated , 30.5.2000 of a District Forum as barred by time by 292 days and dated 6.10.2003 dismissing application seeking review of the above order dated 22.5.2003.

(2.) ALONG with revision, an application seeking condonation of 417 days delay in filing petition has been filed an grounds on which delay is sought to be condoned have been set out in paras 3 and 4 of the application. It is alleged that delay in filing revision against the order dated 22.5.2003 occurred as the petitioners/opposite parties had filed application seeking recall/review of that order. Petitioners could not have filed revision during pendency of review application which remained pending for a period of more than one year before it was dismissed as not maintainable. After dismissal of review application discussions were held at various levels and finally it was decided to have the opinion from legal remembrancer of the State. Law department gave opinion for filing revision against State Commission's order. Thereafter, some time was taken in collecting the record and handing it over to the Counsel for drafting the petition. Delay in question was, thus, unintentionally. It is further alleged that revision petition against the order dated 6.10.2003 is within limitation. Registry has reported that petition was filed on 28.2.2005. Obviously, against the order dated 6.10.2003 also it is barred by time having been filed beyond 90 days of the passing of the order dated 6.10.2003. To be only noted that in said paras 3 and 4 it has not been disclosed when it was decided to have opinion from the legal remembrancer, on which date the legal department gave opinion for filing revision and what was the nature of documents which took time for collection as also when was the case made over to the Counsel for drafting petition. Averments as made in said paras are, thus, vague. Petitioners cannot, therefore, be said to have satisfactorily explained the above said inordinate delay in filing revision petition. To be noticed that appeal was dismissed on ground of its being barred by limitation by 292 days by the order dated 22.5.2003. This order would show that none was even present for the petitioners at the time of hearing before the State Commission. Also considering that fact, we are not inclined to condone the delay in question and application is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit. Revision petition too is dismissed as being barred by limitation.