Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President; Mr. Jasbir Singh &
Mrs. D.K. Bhamrah, Members
SPICE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ANR.—Appellants
versus
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL—Respondent
Misc. Application No. 20 of 2003 in Appeal No. 28 of 2003 —Decided on 10.1.2003

Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. Manmohan Kaur and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.

A clear and specific cause is required for condoning the delay in filing an appeal, and vague explanations may not be sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay.

Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Misplacement of File - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the vague and insufficient cause presented for the delay.
Fact of the Case:

The application was for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga, citing the misplacement of the file due to office shifting as the reason for the delay.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the application to be highly vague and lacking sufficient cause for condoning the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the misplacement of the file during office shifting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a clear and specific cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, and found the vague explanation regarding the misplacement of the file insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as belated.

ORDER

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an application for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the appeal against the order dated September, 25,2002 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.

2. The ground taken in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the application, which is reproduced as under :

“That the delay in the filing of accompanying appeal has occurred on account of the fact that the concerned file has been misplaced due to shifting of office from Chandigarh to Mohali.”

3. It is neither mentioned in the application nor in the affidavit supporting this application as to in whose office the file had been misplaced — in the office of the appellant-applicant or in the office of the Advocate or of his Clerk. Moreover, it is simply stated that the concerned file had been misplaced due to shifting of office from Chandigarh to Mohali. No factual position is forthcoming as to during which period the office was shifted. When the file was misplaced and when it was found. The application for condonation of delay is highly vague and does not show any cause for condoning the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal.

4. In these circumstances, we do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as balated.

Misc. Application dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document