IMPORTANT POINT
Delay condonation application must disclose particulars.

S.B. Mhase, President —Mr. N.V. Sharma Advocate for the appellant absent. Heard Respondent in person.

2. This appeal was filed on 23.7.2010. It was first time listed for admission on 24.9.2010. Alongwith this appeal there is delay condonation application. Said delay condonation application appeared before the State Commission on 24.9.2010. On 24.9.2010 recording absence of the applicant/appellant matter was adjourned to 29.10.2010. It appears that on 14.10.2010 the matter was mentioned before the Bench No.2 and they directed to keep the matter before Bench No.1 on 15.10.2010. On 15.10.2010 it appeared before Bench No.1. It appears that on that date the stay was granted on deposit of the total amount as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum minus the amount which has been already deposited, at the time of filing an appeal.

3. It further appears that as per the scheduled date 29.10.2010 it appeared before Bench No.2. However, Mr. N.V. Sharma Advocate for the applicant made a request to amend the delay condonation application and the time was granted. However, we do not find as to whether the amount was deposited by the appellant as per direction dated 15.10.2010. It is not known whether the said amount has been deposited or not. Thereafter delay condonation application appeared on 6.1.2011. On that date Mr. Sharma—Advocate for the appellant made an oral request and time was granted. It was adjourned to 25.4.2011. On 25.4.2011 Mr. Sharma was absent. His clerk who had no licence issued to work as clerk appeared before us. We passed an order on that date fixing the matter today subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000 to be paid to respondent, who was present on that date. Today appellant is not present. His advocate is not present. No one is present and the respondent complains that amount of cost as directed by order dated 25.4.2011 has not been paid by the appellant. Thus, what we find that stay has been obtained but the amount has not been deposited which was condition for the stay and, thereafter, matter is being protracted by the Learned counsel. Under these circumstances, we have decided to hear the delay condonation application and also merits of the case.

4. According to appellant there is delay in filing the appeal. However, he has not calculated the delay. The impugned order is dated 30.1.2010. Free copy of the said order has been dispatched on 22.2.2010 by dispatch No.361/2010. It appears that the said copy has been received by the appellant on 6.3.2010 and to that effect there is an inward seal of the appellant. Thus, the appeal should have been filed on or before 5.4.2010. It has been filed on 23.7.2010. Thus, there is delay of 118 days. However delay condonation application does not disclose these particulars. In delay condonation application there is no ground made out for condonation of delay. He has only relied upon the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Goverdhan Sao and others, AIR 2002 SC 1201. However, such a reliance is of no consequence because ratio decidendi of any case does not apply in the facts of the case. Here in the present case, no facts have been stated under what circumstances the delay was caused. He has only stated “appellant believed the respondent and trusted on the respondent and so always requesting for payments and threatening instead of approaching to this Hon’ble Court, Mumbai. The appellants, after harassment by respondent, decided to send legal notice and time is very short to recollect the facts for filing an appeal in this Hon’ble Court at Mumbai.

5. The appellants missed the bus of justice by a delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court and condonation of delay in filing appeal is necessary in such circumstances as per cited order dated 27th February 2002, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has illuminated the law on condonation of delay in approaching appellate forums in various matters affecting citizens.”

6. This appeal is simplicitor a dilatory