SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

C.VISWANATH
Nagar Nigam Kota – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Usman – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the order dated 27.02.2013 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Kota (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.109/2011, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/7358/2020, an application for condonation of delay of has also been filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, does not mention the delay in filing this Revision Petition. According to the Registry, there is a delay of 2621 days.

3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on IA/7358/2020, application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that substantial delay in filing the Revision Petition occurred due to missing of the file and this fact came to their knowledge on 06.07.2016. After more than one year, 28.08.2017 legal advice was taken from Shri Sanjeev Vijay, Advocate on filing of the Revision Petition. He advised that the matter being time barred, there was no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top