The court affirmed that ignorance of proceedings is insufficient for delay condonation; timely legal action is required regardless of personal circumstances.

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 05.03.2019 of the State Commission in CC No. 48/2015. The FA has been filed with a delay of 1967 days as per calculations made by the Registry of NCDRC.

2. In order to condone the delay in filing the First Appeal, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the FA after the stipulated limitation period. An IA No. 14727/2024 dated 06.09.2024 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, period of delay mentioned is 1965 and following reasons for delay/grounds for condonation have been mentioned:

i) Appellant was in judicial custody in case arising out of FIR No. 173/2015 registered with PS EOW (C), Delhi and he was informed about the same by his family members and only then the Appellant came to know for the first time about the factum of petition being pending against Appellant, when warrants of arrest were sought to be served upon the Appellant at his residence. Thereafter for the first time on 25.07.2022 appearance before the State Commission was entered by counsel on behalf of Appellant, who informed the State Commission about the Appellant being in judicial custody. Thereafter, production warrants were issued against the Appellant. On 19.09.2022 the Appellant was produced before the State Commission for the very first time and the Appellant requested for supply of paper book, which was duly supplied to the Appellant Upon receiving the copy, time was sought on behalf of the Appellant to take recourse to the legal remedies and matter was adjourned for 10.10.2022.

ii) Thereafter, on the advice of the then counsel of the Appellant the Appellant filed objections to the execution. On 10.10.2022, the Decree Holder was granted time to reply to the objections and the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2023. Thereafter on 18.01.2023, the Appellant was granted time to file rejoinder. On 24.05.2023, the matter got adjourned for 02.08.2023. On 02.08.2023, the matter was adjourned to 18.10.2023. On 18.10.2023, the Appellant engaged new Counsel and the newly engaged counsel did not have the complete file, hence sought time to make submissions, but the State Commission taking note of the fact that the pleadings in the objections are complete and the matter was reserved for orders.

iii) On 27.05.2024, the State Commission dismissed the objections filed by the Appellant and adjourned the matter for further proceedings on 15.07.2024. The Appellant came to know about passing of the said order in the month of June 2024. After perusal of the order dated 27.05.2024, he came to know that Appellant was one of the parties in the original complaint and even a joint written statement was stated to have been filed on behalf of the Appellant in the main complaint. The Appellant did not recall having ever been served in the main complaint case or having participated in original complaint case. To verify the record and check the actual status, physical inspection of the file of the main complaint case being CC/48/2015 was carried out by the newly engaged counsel on 25.06.2024. On verifying, they found that no written statement/vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the Appellant. On 27.06.2024, the Appellant herein applied for certified copy of the entire case file, which was supplied to him on 06.07.2024. The Appellant got the certified copies of the following documents:

i) Order Sheets dated 10.02.2015, 27.05.2015, 30.11.2015, 10.05.2016 19.09.2016, 27.02.2017, 11.08.2017, 25.10.2017, 11.04.2018, 25.10.2018 and Judgment dated 05.03.2019.

ii. Evidence by way