The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory principles of limitation and held that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient and credible explanations, citing previous decisions to support its decision.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J.

Review Petition 176/2023 and I.A 12062/2023 (condonation of delay)

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 20.09.2019, whereby the application of the petitioner for restoration of ARB.P.249/2014 [which was dismissed in default on 15.01.2015], was dismissed.

2. The review petition is accompanied by an application i.e. I.A. 12062/2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1420 days in filing the said review petition.

3. It is averred in I.A. 12062/2023 as under:

"2. That the present Arbitration Petition was dismissed by the order dated 20.09.2019 on account of fault on the part of the erstwhile counsel of the Petitioner. The erstwhile Counsel kept providing false information to the petitioner and when the petitioner asked for the File of the case so that can inquire the status of his case, the Counsel of the petitioner even stopped responding to the calls of the petitioner. The petitioner made several attempts to find the Counsel so that he can take his Case File but unfortunately, he failed to do so.

3. That it was only on 03.08.2019 that the petitioner came to know about address of the Counsel and finally received the case file on 07.08.2019. Upon receiving the Case File, the petitioner came to know that the case has been dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2019. It is reiterated that the petitioner was totally unaware of the dismissal of his case prior to this. The petitioner most humbly submits that his erstwhile Counsel never informed the true status of his case to the petitioner.

4. That after 03.08.2019, the Petitioner taken advised from the new counsel engaged, who advised the Petitioner to file the review petition.

5. That thereafter, from 1st week of September, 2019, the house of the Petitioner/Applicant was under renovation. The files, documents, records, etc. from the Petitioner's house was relocated and on account of the same, the documents which were part of the present case, were misplaced, which were traced on in this month"

4. The averments in the said application are bereft of any material details; the same do not show any sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. Admittedly, the applicant received the case files from his erstwhile counsel on 07.08.2019 and filed application for restoration of arbitration petition [ARB.P.249/2014] through a new counsel. The said application for restoration was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2019 on the ground that the same suffered from inordinate delay. The relevant portion of the said order dated 20.09.2019 reads as under:

"5. The only ground taken in the application is that the erstwhile counsel for the petitioner had kept him in the dark as to the proceedings and the petitioner was unaware of the dismissal of the petition. The petitioner avers that he came to know the address of the counsel only on03.08.2019 and received the case filed on 07.08.2019. The petitioner claims to have deposited the amount required for process fee with the counsel in good time. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a complaint against his erstwhile counsel before the Bar Council of India.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find sufficient cause having been disclosed to permit restoration of the petition at this belated stage. The plea that the petitioner was unaware of the developments in his case cannot be accepted 4 s years later. The petitioner is engaged in business and the contracts in question are commercial in nature. His plea that he was unaware of legal processes or that he relied upon counsel are insufficient to justify the delay and restore the petition. An inordinate delay of this nature and the failure of counsel to respond satisfactorily to the petitioner's enquiries ought to have caused the petitioner to take alternative steps within a reasonable period. Restoration of proceedings cannot be granted as a matter course or merely on the ground of m