INDIA INFOLINE LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA INFOLINE SECURITES (P)LTD. Vs. RAJENDRA BAHADUR YADAV S/O. SH. GANGA PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 03.10.2012, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order of the District Forum dated 02.09.2008 was dismissed by the State Commission for want of prosecution. It would be pertinent to note here that the respondent/complainant was present when the complaint came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Since there is delay of more than 4 years and 2 months in filing the revision petition, an application being IA/4690/2017 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay.

(2.) The application seeking condonation of delay, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

(3.) As noted earlier, no one was present for the petitioner/appellant when the appeal filed by the petitioner company was dismissed for want of prosecution, though, the case of the petitioner is that it had engaged the services of Mr. Neeraj Sahani, Advocate for prosecuting the said appeal. According to the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, Mr. Neeraj Sahani has stopped appearing for the petitioner company and that was the reason the appeal was dismissed in default. However, no affidavit or even a letter of Mr. Neeraj Sahani has not been filed to prove that the intimation of dismissal of the appeal was not given by him to the petitioner company. This is not the case of the petitioner that any legal notice was sent by it to Mr. Neeraj Sahani, Advocate alleging negligence on his part in prosecuting the appeal. There is no averment of a complaint having been made to the concerned Bar Council against Mr. Neeraj Sahani for having stopped appearing on behalf of the petitioner company. In these circumstances, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the petitioner company was not aware of the dismissal of its appeal vide order dated 010.2012.