IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay of 2603 days in filing of revision petition cannot be condoned.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, Maharashtra dated 10-10-2008 in First Appeal No.811 of 2007, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum, Nashik, in default has filed this revision petition. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of 90 days period of limitation as provided in Regulation 16 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 with a delay of almost eight years i.e. 2603 days. The petitioner has, therefore, moved an application for condonation of delay. The only explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition is in para 3 of the application which is reproduced as under:

“The petitioner bank was held liable by the District Commission, Maharashtra and the said order was confirmed by the Hon’ble State Commission as it was dismissed for default. The complainant in his prayer before the District Forum has not contended again the present petitioner. The said impugned order was passed on 10-10-2008. The petitioner bank is a corporative bank and is liable to his share holders. In pursuit of the legal action taken by the complainant, the petitioner bank moved an application to the Reserve Bank of India for the same. The said reply from the Reserve Bank of India has still not come and the respondents are moving on with the execution. As the respondents have moved with the execution, the petitioner is filing the present revision petition with some delay which is under some special circumstances and deserves to be condoned.”

2. The above explanation is highly vague and does not explain as to why the petitioner bank kept on sleeping over the matter for an inordinate period of 2603 days. Law regarding condonation of delay is well settled. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held:

“24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;

“29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts’ discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.”

The Court further observed:

“27. It is not in disp