IMPORTANT POINT
“Sufficient Cause”- ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting its case.

ORDER (ORAL)

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 255 days in filing of this Revision Petition. IA No.11469 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the said delay. As per the petitioner, the impugned order was passed on 12.09.2022. Thereafter, the local counsel of the petitioner at Lucknow applied for a certified copy of the Impugned order and the same was received by the local counsel on 22.09.2022.

2. He handed over the impugned order to his clerk for delivering at the office of the petitioner at Lucknow. The said clerk, due to oversight, did not hand over the same and after sometime the said clerk fell ill. Thus, the certified copy of the impugned Judgment/ Order was provided at the Petitioner’s office at Lucknow only on 19.04.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s company consulted their Advocates in Delhi and discussed the further course of action. The process of identifying and consulting Advocates took some time. Upon receiving legal opinions, the Petitioner decided to challenge the Impugned Judgment/Order before the NCDRC. Accordingly, the Revision Petition was assigned to the present Advocates for filing and progressing before the NCDRC. For drafting and filing the Revision Petition, certain material and documents forming part of the records before the learned State Commission and the District Forum was necessitated. It took some time since as they pertain to year 2009 and most were illegible. The Advocates also gathered inputs from the company officials to draft Revision Petition. It was scrutinized at various levels in the Company and, appropriate changes were made it was filed. This resulted in some unavoidable delay. The learned counsel vehemently argued that, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but for certain genuine reasons mentioned. The Petitioner sought condoned of 255 days of delay.

3. As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulate that:—

“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:—

(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order...”

4. Therefore, the present revision petition was to be filed within 90 days of the receipt of the order of the learned State Commission. From the perusal of records, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 12.09.2022 and the order was received on 22.09.2022, the present revision was filed on 02.09.2023 and its admitted position that, there has been a delay of 255 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361, has observed 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.”

6. The test which is to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held:—

“We hold that in each and