ORDER

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 1879 days in filing this Revision Petition. Accordingly, IA No. 5433 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking Condonation of delay. In the said IA, it is submitted that the above-captioned petition has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Review Application No. 24/2021 and final order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No. 1389 of 2014. He further submitted that the petitioner is a 75+ years, senior citizen with serious health conditions and the Appellant undergoes dialysis for advance chronic kidney disease since 2018. Therefore, the petitioner could not file this petition in due time as he was under strict lockdown due to the pandemic and he being a highly vulnerable target for Covid-19 since 2020. It was also pertinent to mention that the petitioner was informed regarding the legal proceeding against him for the very first time, in 2019.

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 State Commission passed the Order on 14.11.2018. The limitation for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, this period would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioners i.e. 14.11.2018 while the limitation lapsed on 11.2.2019. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 5.4.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 1879 days (12.2.2019 to 4.4.2024).

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 held:

“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 also observed as under:-

“while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer