IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Limitation - Limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party.
2. Condonation of delay - Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 09.01.2019 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1221/2010, whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed.

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/1000/2022, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, there is a delay of 922 days in filing the Revision Petition. However, according to the computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 1022 days.

3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on IA/1000/2022, application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the after receiving the order passed from the State Commission, the Petitioner sought legal opinion from its panel lawyer on 25.01.2019. Thereafter, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad, vide letter dated 08.01.2020, advised the Nodal Office, Delhi to file the Revision Petition. The said approval was issued on 16.01.2020 but the Petition was not filed due to pandemic. It is stated in the application that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is procedural in nature which occurred due to involvement of three offices i.e. SRO Vatva, ACC Zonal Office Gujarat and Nodal office at Delhi. It was also submitted that translation of the documents in vernacular language to English language also took some time. It was further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.03 of 2020, vide order dated 23.03.2020 directed that the period of limitation shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further order. The delay in filing the Revision Petition, is neither intentional nor deliberate.

5. The ground taken by the Petitioner is that they sought legal opinion from their panel lawyer on 25.01.2019. Thereafter, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad, vide letter dated 08.01.2020, advised the Nodal Office Delhi to file the Revision Petition. After taking the opinion from the panel lawyer on 25.01.2019, the Zonal Office of the Petitioner took almost one year in taking the decision upto 08.01.2020 to obtain approval to file the Revision Petition, for which no explanation has been given. Further, the Petitioner took the ground that translation of documents from Vernacular to English language took some time. Time taken to get the documents translated, however, has not been mentioned. The judgment relied by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.03 of 2020 (supra) is only partly applicable in the instant case as only the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 was extended till further orders vide the above order. There was undue and unreasonable delay from 25.01.2019 to 15.03.2020 which has not been explained.

6. From the above, it is seen that the Petitioner remained inactive for a fairly long time and has not acted diligently. The Apex Court held that settled legal proposition of law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party. The Appellant has not been able to give adequate and sufficient reason which prevented them to approach this Commission within the limitation.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)” has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the