ORDER

Heard.

M.A. No.441 of 2014 has been filed for restoration of the petition which was dismissed on 14.07.2014 for want of prosecution as well as for non-compliance of order dated 09.10.2013, passed by this Commission. Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 39 days has also been filed.

Order dated 14.7.2014 read as under;

“Dated : 14^th July, 2014

ORDER

The present revision petition came up for hearing for the first time before this Commission on 15.10.2012. On that date, Shri Anil Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner sought four weeks time to remove the defects. Request was allowed, subject to the condition that no further extension of time shall be allowed under any circumstances and the matter was adjourned to 18.1.2013.

On 18.1.2013, again counsel for petitioner sought one week time to remove the defects. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 6.3.2013.

On 6.3.2013, one proxy counsel appeared and sought adjournment.

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 8.8.2013.

On 8.8.2013, Shri Anil Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner appeared and after arguing for some time sought time to take instructions as to whether petitioner wants to pursue with the matter or not and as such matter was adjourned to

25.9.2013.

On 25.9.2013, one proxy counsel appeared and sought adjournment. His request was allowed and matter was adjourned to 9.10.2013.

On 9.10.2013, again proxy counsel appeared and sought adjournment.

Accordingly the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2013 and the petitioner was directed to appear in person before this Commission.

On 28.11.2013, Shri Tarjit Singh, Advocate for petitioner appeared and on instruction stated that petitioner wants to pursue the present petition. Further, he stated that he has been engaged recently and sought time to file vakalatnama. He was given one week time to file the same and the matter was adjourned for today.

Today, on the first call, none was present on behalf of petitioner. However, on the second call Shri Tarjit Singh, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and has stated that he has lost his file and as such adjournment was sought.

Counsel for petitioner had more than 7½ months to file the vakalatnama, but he had failed to do so within the specified period. Be that as it may, petitioner has not appeared before this Commission in spite of specific direction given to him vide order dated 9.10.2013. Moreover, Shri Tarjit Singh, Advocate has not been authorized by the petitioner at all either to appear or to conduct this case.

The above proceeding of the case clearly goes on to show that petitioner as well as its counsel are not interested in pursuing this litigation and for the last about two years they have been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.

Under these circumstances, the present petition stand dismissed for want of prosecution as well as for non-

compliance of order dated 9.10.2013 passed by this Commission by the petitioner.

Copy of today’s proceeding be sent to the petitioner”.

Order dated 14.07.2014 is a speaking one and it shows about the conduct of the petitioner in pursuing this litigation in a careless and casual manner.

Moreover, there is delay of 39 days in filling of the application for restoration.

Thus, after going through the record, we do not find any ground for restoration of the revision petition. Present application for restoration is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits, with cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only).

Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account’ of this Commission within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

List for compliance on 28th November, 2014.

......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ......................

SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER