IMPORTANT POINT
Where there is a delay, the burden is upon the person who appeared before the Commission for condonation of delay to explain it by sufficient reasons.

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22nd March, 2019 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing appeal No.1822/2017 against the order of the District Forum dated 9th May, 2017 in CC/97/2016 was dismissed.

2. There was a caveat and the caveator is also present. Hence, the caveat is discharged. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is also delay in filing the present revision petition and that an application for condonation of delay has also been moved by the petitioner.

3. Heard. Since the delay in filing this revision petition is merely of 17 days, the said delay is condoned.

4. Arguments on the revision petition are heard. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the State Commission had erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that it was filed with delay. It is submitted that it ought to have been decided the matter on merit and order is illegal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the petitioner is in the habit of getting delayed and they take the matters very casually which contention is apparent from the fact that not only the appeal was filed with the delay, the present revision petition has also bene filed with delay. It is further argued that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and they are required to show sufficient reasons for condoning the delay which they had failed.

6. There is no doubt that the appeal was filed by the petitioner with delay and that is why an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. Although in the application the petitioner had stated that the delay was of 49 days, the Registry of the State Commission calculated the delay as of 87 days. There is no doubt that Courts/Commissions while dealing with the appeal/revision should make an endeavour to dispose of the matters on merits. However, where there is a delay, the burden is upon the person who appeared before the Commission for condonation of delay to explain it by sufficient reasons which prevented them from moving the appeal/revision within time. The delay is not a matter of right as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. There is no doubt that the Commission has to adopt a liberal attitude but still the law requires that the applicant has to explain the delay of each and every day by giving reasonable explanation for such delay. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held 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.”

7. The test which this Commission has to apply while dealing with the matters is if the applicant had acted with reasonable/due diligence. Where the due diligence is missing and where there are no circumstances which could be of such nature that the applicant had been prevented from filing the appeal/revision within the period of limitation, such delay cannot be condoned. The test to be applied has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of