IMPORTANT POINT
‘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 & applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecution its case.

ORDER

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 428 days in filing this Revision Petition. Accordingly, IA No. 5741 of 2024 has been filed by the Petitioners seeking Condonation of delay. In the said IA, the petitioners submitted that the certified copy of the impugned order was received only on 23.11.2022 at IGNOU Regional Centre, Jaipur as forwarded the University’s Advocate Shri NS Yadav who was defending the present matter before the learned SCDRC, Jaipur and, thereafter, since the issue involved a concerning issue, it took some time to seek instructions and gather information from the appropriate authority of the petitioners, to prepare and finalize the petition and, therefore, the petition could not be prepared and filed in this Commission within time. However, on presentation for filing, it was informed that the said petition is wrongly filed as ‘Second Appeal’. Therefore, the delay was being adjusted in the present petition under the ‘Revision’ category. They also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 2022 titled ‘Manager, Indusind Bank Limited & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Ghosh’ vide order dated 17.05.2022. The delay caused in filing the Revision Petition is neither intentional nor deliberate.

2. As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates 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…”

3. In the present Revision Petition, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 12.10.2022. The limitation for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing the Revision Petition would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 01.11.2022 while the limitation lapsed on 29.01.2023. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 02.04.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 428 days (30.01.2023 to 01.04.2024) in filing of the present Revision Petition.

4. As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed:—

“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.”

5. The test to be applied while dealing with such cases 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 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 prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” has a