Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
LALIT - Appellant
Versus
DR. SUNIL JADHAV AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 767 of 2014 from Order dated 3.5.2013 in Appeal No. 2072/2008 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : 03-03-2014
Mr. Deepak Thukral, Advocate, for the Appellant
Negligence of a litigant's agent is not a sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC); R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, (2009) 2 SCALE 108; Ram Lal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1221; Banshi v. Lakshmi Narain, 1993 (1) RLR 68; Jaswant Singh v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2000 (3) PLR 83; Bhandari Dass v. Sushila, 1997 (2) RLW 845; M/s. Chawala & Co. v. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing a revision petition due to various reasons including the loss of files by the counsel. The court found the delay to be unjustified and referred to several legal authorities to support its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the revision petition was not adequately explained and cited legal precedents to support its decision. The court also dismissed the revision petition at the time of its admission.
Issues: Delay Condonation, Justification for Delay, Duty of Advocate, Negligence of Litigant's Agent
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that negligence of a litigant's agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. The court also emphasized the duty of the advocate to inspect the record and file true copies if necessary.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition at the time of its admission due to the unjustified delay in filing.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 170 days in filing the revision petition. The Petitioner has explained the delay in para 2 of the application moved for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as follows:
"2. That there is a delay of 153 days in filing the aforesaid revision petition. The reason of delay is being that the Counsel of the petitioner Mr. Parag Kale, Advocate did not inform the petitioner about passing of impugned order dated 3.5.2013, whereby the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed and it was only on the inquiry of the petitioner No. 1 in the second week of August, 2013, that the Counsel informed the petitioner about passing of impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner collected the brief from Mr. Parag Kale, Advocate and engaged the present Counsel and handed over the brief to him on 31.8.2013, for filing the revision petition. But unfortunately, the car of the Counsel was stolen on 4.9.2013 from the District Court at Faridabad and consequently, the Counsel lost many files which were kept in the Dikki of the said car, including the file of the present matter. The Counsel, accordingly, informed the petitioner regarding loss of file on 12.9.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner took some time to collect the entire documents and orders from District Forum and State Commission and he again handed over the brief of the present matter to the Counsel on 12.11.2013. The Counsel then drafted the revision petition and sent it to the petitioner at Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) for vetting and signature. The petitioner, after vetting, returned the matter to the Counsel on 10.12.2013. There-after, the Counsel got the entire documents and orders translated into English because all the documents and orders were in Hindi language and got the translation of the matter on 16.1.2014 and is filing the same today."
2. As a matter of fact, there is a delay of 170 days as per the report submitted by the Registry. There is huge delay in filing the present revision petition and day-to-day delay has not been explained. There is no plea or evidence that the petitioner had visited the office of his Counsel, Sh. Parag Kale to post himself about the next date of hearing. The car of the Advocate was stolen on 4.8.2013, but he sent the information on 12.9.2013. The revision petition was filed on 27.1.2014, knowing well that the case was going to be barred by limitation. The file can be reconstructed, within a week. The duty of the Advocate is to inspect the record and he can file even true copies of the record, for the time being. Everyday, the Advocates pray for permission to file the certified copies after some period. That request is always allowed. There is no cogent or plausible reason which may prove the case of the petitioner.
3. The law has a crystalline clarity. The following authorities neatly dovetail this view (1) Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC); (2) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, (2009) 2 SCALE 108; (3) Ram Lal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; (4) Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1221.
4. In Banshi v. Lakshmi Narain, 1993 (1) RLR 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the Counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer's office and enquired about the case. The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made.
5. Similar view was taken in two other cases, reported in Jaswant Singh v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2000 (3) PLR 83 and Bhandari Dass v. Sushila, 1997 (2) RLW 845].
6. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant's agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. [See M/s. Chawala & Co
