HUDA & ANR Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal for these applications are that the petitioner HUDA being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the Foras below directing the petitioner to refund to the respondent/complainant the excess amount charged to the tune of Rs.66,200/- alongwtih 12% interest thereon till the date of realization besides Rs.2200/- as litigation charges, preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The aforesaid revision petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.1.2014. Thus MA/173/2016 for restoration of revision petition has been filed on 23.3.2016 after the expiry of more than two years from the date of dismissal of the revision petition. The petitioner has therefore moved IA/3080/2016 for condonation of delay in filing of the application for restoration. The reason for delay in filing of the application is detailed in para 3 to 5 of the application for condonation of delay which are reproduced as under:

(3.) We do not find merit in the above explanation. Admittedly, the petitioner HUDA came to know about the dismissal of the revision petition in default in the year 2014 and Sh. Raktim Gogoi was requested to move application for restoration vide office memo no.3016 dated 5.8.2014. The petitioner has tried to blame Sh. Raktim Gogoi, Advocate for not filing of the restoration application but it is not explained if Sh. Raktim Gogoi, Advocate did not file the restoration application, why the petitioner HUDA kept on waiting and did not take corrective steps by engaging some other counsel for moving the application. The conduct of the petitioner in this case is grossly negligent. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the request for condonation of delay.