IMPORTANT POINT
No explanation regarding delay of two months in placing file before Chairman and for condonation of 8 months delay from, when file placed before Chairman, no error in dismissing condonation of delay.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2nd Addl. Bench, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Misc. Appn. No.1126/2015 in Appeal No.603/2015 – Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Janinder Kumar Jain & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No.1 filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 15.6.2010 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to allot alternative plot of 150 sq. yds. in equally developed locality at old price and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of escalation of cost of construction, Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 1776 days which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of lapses on the part of officials, appeal could not be filed in time and inspite of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application as well appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that District Forum allowed complaint by order dated 15.6.2010 which was received by OP on 29.6.2010. As per averment in the application, on filing execution by complainant it was found that copy of order of District Forum was annexed with file by putting respective number and date. Learned State Commission observed that there was no cutting on the page and prima facie no proof that entry of Sr. No.3085 by which order of District Forum was received was made later on. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that order of District Forum was annexed with record later on by employee of OP in connivance with complainant. Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that order of District Forum was annexed later on, admittedly OP came to know about order on 14.8.2010 when notice of execution petition was received by OP. File was placed before Chairman on 17.10.2014 meaning thereby, after two months of receiving notice of execution proceedings and appeal was filed on 10.6.2015, i.e., after 8 months after placing file before Chairman. No explanation has been given regarding delay of two months in placing file before Chairman and no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of 8 months delay from 17.10.2014 when file was placed before Chairman. Learned State Commission has not committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay.

6. As there was inordinate delay of 1776 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 : 2013 (4) CPR 785 (SC), it has been observed:

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

8. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is show