IMPORTANT POINT
There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—We shall decide two revision petitions filed by HUDA, though there is delay of 740 days’ in filing revision petition No. 838/2012. The petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the order dated 04.11.2004 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon. The said order was confirmed by the State Commission. The principal plea set up by HUDA is that the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is barred by time under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Major K.L. Monga, the complainant/respondent applied for allotment of a plot in Defence Quota, in Sector-17, Gurgaon, through respondent No.2, namely, Zila Sainik Board, OP 3, by depositing a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant never applied with the petitioner for any allotment. He never approached the authorities for any allotment of plot and suddenly in the year 2001, after 23 years’ from the alleged application, filed Consumer Complaint No. 1422/19.11.2001, before the District Forum, Gurgaon.

3. It is alleged that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’. However, the District Forum directed that the plot be allotted to the complainant. The order of the District Forum, Gurgaon pertains to 07.07.2004. The complainant filed Execution Application No.260/2004. The Executing Court, vide its order dated 04.11.2004, directed HUDA to allot him a plot of his own choice. It also directed to pay upto date interest, which did not form part of the original order.

4. Two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one against the original order and second against the order passed by the Executing Court. There was delay of 2709 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission against the original order. Therefore, the said appeal was dismissed as barred by time.

5. In the second appeal, it was held that the appeal was filed against the order dated 07.07.2004. It was held that the order had attained finality. The State Commission did not find any infirmity in the order and dismissed the second appeal as well.

6. There is delay of 740 days’ in filing revision petition No. 838/2012 which is in respect of order passed in the execution proceedings.

7. It is clear that revision petitions filed by HUDA are hopelessly barred by time. However, we admitted the revision petition because it was pleaded that the complaint filed before the District Forum was barred by more than 20 years’. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention towards two authorities which are reported in Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Bijoy Kumar Roy & Ors.1 and Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood.2

8. At the time of final arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention towards two other authorities reported in SBI v. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries3 and the judgment of this Commission in RP No. 1583 of 2005, titled as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Krishan Pal Chander, decided on 23.11.2009. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant had applied for the plot in the year 1997 and he had filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 2004, after expiry of 23 years’ and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

9. We find no force in her arguments. The above said authorities are not applicable to these cases. The petitioner had deposited Rs.1,000/- as per the Scheme floated by the Government. He has not got the plot till now. The cause of action will continue till he gets the plot in question. In Lata Construction & Ors. v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah & Anr.4 the Apex Court has upheld the order of this Commission, holding that “a perusal of the agreement dated 23.02.1991 would show that it was specifically stipulated therein that the rights under the agreement dated 27.01.1987 would remain unaffected. It was for this reason that in the claim petition filed before the Comm