YUDHVIR SINGH GULERIA Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are directed against the order of the State Commission dated 19.03.2013 whereby the said Commission dismissed in default, the appeals which the petitioner had preferred against the order of the District Forum. Since there is delay of more than 2 years and 8 months in filing the revision petitions, I.A. Nos.2995 to 2998 of 2016 have been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the said delay. The applications to the extent they seek to explain the delay in filing the revision petitions read as under:-

(2.) Thus the only ground given by the petitioner for not filing these revision petitions within the prescribed period is that he did not come to know of the dismissal of his appeals before the State Commission till he received a notice of the execution proceeding from the concerned District Forum on 05.12.2015. According to the petitioner, on receiving the notice he tried to contact his counsel but he could not succeed. Therefore, he went to Shimla and made enquiry from the State Commission where he came to know that his appeals had been dismissed in default on 19.03.2013. This is not the case of the petitioner that on reaching Shimla, he had contacted and met his Advocate. This is also not his case that on coming to know of the dismissal of his appeals, he contacted the Advocate whom he had engaged to prosecute the said appeals. In the ordinary course of human conduct, had the allegations of the petitioner been correct, the first thing, he would have done on receiving the notice of the execution proceeding, would have been to contact his Advocate on his telephone. The petitioner has vaguely alleged that he could not succeed in contacting his counsel but has not explained for what reason, he was unable to contact his Advocate on telephone from Dharamshala where he is residing. Be that as it may, there is no explanation as to why on reaching Shimla and coming to know of the dismissal of his appeals he did not contact the advocate whom he had engaged to prosecute his appeal. Again this is contrary to the normal course of events, since such a person being agitated on account of dismissal of his appeal due to non-appearance of the Advocate would immediately contact the Advocate and ask him why he had not appeared before the State Commission and why he had not informed the dismissal of his appeals to him.

(3.) The petitioner did not issue any legal notice to the Advocate on account of whose alleged negligence his appeals were dismissed by the State Commission. No complaint against the said Advocate has been made to the concerned Bar Council. Even a letter has not been written to the Advocate alleging therein that the appeals had been dismissed on account of his negligence and the said dismissal had not been conveyed to the petitioner. In fact, even the name of the Advocate has not been disclosed in the applications.