IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence of litigant’s agent is negligence of litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—There is inordinate delay in filing this revision petition by 768 days. The revision petition was filed in the year 2011 but somehow learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear and therefore, the delay in deciding this revision petition was caused due to the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner on various dates. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has explained the delay that firstly Mohamed Yasuf, petitioner, was diagnosed as coronary artery disease in 2007. Since then the petitioner is on regular follow up and needs long term treatment as per the medical certificate issued by Associate Professor and unit No. 2 Head Department of Cardiology, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. The impugned order was announced on 22.7.2009. Consequently, he could not file the revision petition and there is a delay of 768 days in filing the revision petition. However, according to the registry, there is delay of 678 days. The petitioner has filed on record the medical certificate issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal dated June, 21, 2001 which runs as follows:-

“ June 21, 2011

To WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that Mr. Mohammed Yousuf, 69 years, Hospital No. 01773700 was diagnosed as coronary artery disease in 2007. Since then he is on regular follow-up and needs long term treatment for the same.

Sd/-

Dr. Tom Devasia, MD, DM

Associate Professor & Unit II Head

Department of Cardiology

Kasturba Hospital,

Manipal-576104”

2. It is explained that the application for getting the certified copy was moved on 1.8.2009. The petitioner did not receive the copy of the order from his counsel due to slip shot and engagement in his legal profession. He forgot to intimate about the status of appeal. The petitioner was under the impression that the appeal was still pending. In August, 2011, the petitioner made inquiry and it transpired that the order was passed by the State Commission on 22.7.2009. The office collected all the documents through Shri G. A. Anthony Cruze, Advocate of Bangalore. The petitioner used to contact his counsel at Bangalore and used to have telephonic conversations but the counsel represented him due to his profession engagement he could not intimate the status report of his case. It is contended that delay on the part of the petitioner is bona fide. It is also explained that SLP (Civil) No. 17758-17759 of 2008 is pending before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide its order dated 21.4.2010 dismissed the said SLP filed by the department. The said case is reported in 1995(6) SCC page 614. It was also pointed out that the Supreme Court condoned the delay of 30 years in filing the SLP considering the merits of that case. The reference was also made to the celebrated authority in Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Anantnag v. MST Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC Page 1353 and other authorities reported in Rafiq v. Munshilal and another AIR 1981 SC 1400, Abdul Ghafoor & Anr. v. State of Bihar1 and N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy.2

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above said arguments.

4. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The name of the Advocate who is responsible for the delay was not clearly disclosed. It was also not stated that if any action was taken against the said advocate. No legal notice etc. against the said Advocate saw the light of the day. It had become very convenient to shift the blame on the advocates. It is the duty of every litigant to post himself on each date of hearing. However, due to some ailment one person cannot go to the office of his advocate. He must send somebody on his behalf or telephone or through postal communication himself must know the then status of his case. The version that he could not know about the status for this case for a period of 2 years cannot be believed. It clearly goes to show that the petitioner was himself negligent and in