JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 58 of the 'Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was admitted by the Court on the following question of law:-

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for seeking condonation of delay while dismissing the appeal solely on the aforesaid grounds."

3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that against the order passed by the RERA Authority dated 02.11.2021. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay which by means of the judgment dated 22.09.2022 has been rejected, as a consequence, the appeal also stood dismissed.

4. It is pointed out that in the application seeking condonation of delay, the reasons were indicated why the appeal was preferred with delay, however, taking a pedantic view, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application.

5. It has been pointed out that the appellant had applied for the certified copy of the judgment and though the appeal ought to have been filed in the month of January, 2022 but since post-covid, the office of the appellant-company had to be shifted and during this process which continued till April, 2022, the file relating to the case in question was mislaid.

6. It is only when the file was traced, the appeal was filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay but this aspect of the matter has not been appropriately considered by the Appellate Tribunal.

7. It has also been submitted that the Country had been passing through the Covid-19 pandemic and taking note of the same, the Apex Court had already excluded the period of limitation in the case of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 In re:-Cognizance for Extension of Limitation whereby for the period of 20th March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022, the limitation for all the periods of limitation was excluded.

8. It is further urged that the impact of covid-19 pandemic was also reflected on the real estate industry as a whole, coupled with the infrastructural problems faced by the appellant company, it necessitated the appellant to re-locate from the existing office situate at Vaibhav Khand, Indira Puram, Ghaziabad to Sector-129, Noida.

9. It is also pointed out that the delay was not so humongous that it could not have been condoned and even otherwise judicial discretion is to be exercised in favour of the matter being heard substantively rather than be shut out on technical grounds.

10. It has also been indicated that the proceedings arose from an issue where the settlement had been arrived at between the appellant and the respondent and after the said settlement was acted upon that the respondents instituted a complaint which came to be allowed against which the appeal was preferred. The appellant has substantial case on merits and it is prayed that the delay ought to have been condoned.

11. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195 as well as on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Devi Prasad Dwivedi Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Office and Another in FAFO (D) No. 788 of 2012 decided on 04.11.2019.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent while opposing the aforesaid prayer submits that though the appeal ought to have been filed uptil the moth of January, 2022 and even if the benefit of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suo Moto (Supra) is granted to the appellant, even then the period came to lapse in May, 2022. Even thereafter, there has been no proper explanation as the appeal came to be filed in the month of September, 2022 and for this period, there is no explanation.

13. It has further been submitted that thoug