Lack of justification for delay in filing appeal and the relevance of the shifting of the meter within the same building in determining the appeal's admissibility.

ORDER

Mr. P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member—Heard Adv. P.M. Shah for the applicant/appellant and Adv. R.V. Karkande for non-applicant/respondent no. 1 on the point of delay. There is a delay of 55 days in filing appeal. It is contended that applicant was not the party before the District Forum and that is why when he came to know about the impugned order as the meter was shifted from where the applicant was residing and thereafter he moved an application for certified copy of the order and obtained the same and filed the present appeal. Hence, there is delay.

2. However, it is clear from the submission of the applicant itself that meter was shifted on 26/04/2014 and on that day even as per him he came to know about the order. However, he applied for certified copy of the order on 11/07/2014. There is nothing on record to show as to why there is a delay even for applying certified copy of the order. So in absence of any explanation for this delay, we find that the application deserves to be rejected.

3. Question is about only shifting of meter from the room where the applicant is residing to another room in the same building where the original complainant is residing. It has come on record that the applicant has filed civil suit for partition against original complainant and others. That was decreed. Appeal is filed against that decree and said appeal is pending. Learned advocate Mr. R.V. Karkande for the respondent has pointed out para no. 26 of the judgment of the Civil Court where it is observed that "as regards telephone and electric meter, I think that the meter is affixed to the suit house and therefore, while partitioning the same, its approximate cost will be taken into consideration at the time of passing of the final decree. As such, there is no need to determine the share of each of the parties in the electric meter as well as the telephone which are installed in the suit building. Consequently, there is no need to adjudicate upon the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of telephone and electric meter." In view of these observations, we find that even appeal cannot be entertained as here there is shifting of meter from one room to another room of the same building which is standing in the name of the original complainant. Another meter stands in the name of this applicant. Hence on this count also, we find that there is no necessity to condone the delay. Hence, delay of 55 days is not condoned and application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.