IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Diligent - The applicant is also required to show that it had been acting diligently and reasons were beyond its control.
(2) Discretion - It is settled proposition of law that the discretion to condone the delay lies with the Commission but condonation has to be granted on equitable grounds.

ORDER

The present Appeal has been filed on 12.09.2022 challenging the order of the State Commission dated 22.07.2015 in Complaint No.CC/11/2020.

2. Along with Appeal, which is delayed by 2579 days as per the Registry, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. This application is listed as IA No. 8810 of 2022.

IA No. 8810 of 2022 (condonation of delay)

3. Arguments have been heard on this application of the learned counsel. File perused.

4. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 22.07.2015 and the appeal has been filed on 12.09.2022 and there is delay of 2579 days. While seeking condonation of delay of almost 7 years, learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that they were ex parte before the State Commission and they learnt of the impugned order only when they received the summons in the execution application on 22.11.2018. Even if, we calculate the period of limitation from the date of knowledge, which allegedly is 22.11.2018, there is delay of about 4 years. The Appellant, therefore, is required to explain the reasons for delay in filing the present Appeal and it is required to explain day to day delay. In the application it is submitted that he applied for copies of the documents before the State Commission in February 2019 which he received on 19.12.2019. No reason has been given as to why the application seeking copies of documents before the State Commission had been filed after a delay of almost 4 months. Counsel for the Appellant seeks condonation of delay in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. However, she has failed to show that she is entitled for the benefit given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said petition.

5. Absolutely, no reasonable explanation seeking condonation of delay has been disclosed in the application.

6. It is settled proposition of law that the discretion to condone the delay lies with the Commission but condonation has to be granted on equitable grounds. The applicant is required to show the sufficient causes of delay which prevented him / her from filing the appeal. Those reasons which prevented him / her from filing the same must be of such a nature which were beyond its control. The applicant is also required to show that it had been acting diligently and reasons were beyond its control. In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The Court has jurisdiction to reject the application for condonation of delay where sufficient reasons are not shown. The Apex Court has held as under:—

“12. 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. In case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:—

“5. 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