IMPORTANT POINT
Where sufficient cause is not shown, the Courts are within their jurisdiction to dismiss the application.—Para 3

IA / 7848 / 2019 (preponement of date of hearing)

Case is taken up on this application, requesting that on the previous date i.e. 29.04.2019, the Bench was on leave and the Court Master has given the date of 07.01.2020 for admission of the matter. It is requested that matter be heard. Accordingly, application is allowed and matter is heard.

IA / 6443 / 2019 (condonation of delay)

(Oral)

Arguments are heard on the application for condonation of delay. This application is filed along with the appeal for condonation of delay in filing it. In the application, number of days by which the present appeal is delayed, is not mentioned. The Registry has reported that delay is of about 183 days. It is submitted that delay has occurred as the appellant was negotiating with the respondent offering possession of the alternate flat to the respondent and in that context had also written a letter dated 23.10.2018. The appellant received the contempt notice dated 05.11.2018 on 10.11.2018. The appellants also issued another notice for alternate unit on 24.11.2018. The respondent, however, was negotiating with them on one hand and on the other hand, he filed the execution petition. The appellant came to know about the execution petition on 20.03.2019 when the warrants were issued. It is submitted that for these reasons, appeal could not be filed within limitation. It is prayed that delay be condoned.

2. We have heard the arguments and have perused the record.

3. The principle of law is clear that it is the abundant duty of applicant to explain the delay of each and every date by sufficient reasons. Admittedly, the period of limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, the appellant had received the copy of the order on 15.9.2018 and as such the period of limitation had thus expired on 14.10.2018. They issued first letter to the respondent offering alternate unit to him only on 23.10.2018 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation. Their contention is that they were negotiating with the respondent for the alternate accommodation. This cannot be sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Sufficient grounds could be such which prevented them from filing the present appeal and there is no reason shown in the application for condoning the delay which occurred between 15.09.2018 to 23.10.2018 before they wrote a letter to the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and where sufficient cause is not shown, the Courts are within their jurisdiction to dismiss the application. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 as under:—

“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 shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

4. In the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that test to determine whether the applicant is entitled for condonation of delay or not is whether he had acted diligently or remained inactive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:—

“We hold that in each and every case the Co