The court dismissed the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay due to inadequate justification for the 481-day delay in filing the Revision Petition.

ORDER (ORAL)

1. As per the report of the Registry, there is 656 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. I.A. No. 863 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, the Petitioner contended that this Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Commission, Lucknow (State Commission) in Appeal No. 922 of 2000 wherein the District Forum, Kanpur Dehat findings were upheld. The District Forum had directed the Petitioner to hand over possession of the house in question within six months from the date of its decision, subject to rectification of deficiencies pointed out by the Complainant and-upon receipt of the amount deposited by the Complainant till the date of possession. Further, interest 12% per annum was awarded on Rs.29,290. The District Forum also held that in the event possession is. not delivered, the Complainant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 500- The Petitioner contended that the State Commission gravely erred in not appreciating that the construction of the said house was completed as per the sanctioned plan and all requisite amenities were duly provided. The Complainant, however, declined to take possession and made unfounded allegations. The impugned orders of the both the Fora below suffer from legal and factual infirmities and are not sustainable. Consequent to filing of Execution Case No. 11 of 2022 in Complaint Case No. 873 of 1999 by the Complainant, a show cause notice was issued by the Execution Court under Section 72(1) of the Act, 2019, seeking, explanation for non- compliance of the District Forum’s order dated 21.02.2000. Faced with these developments and being dissatisfied with the State Commission order, the Petitioner sought legal advice from a counsel at Lucknow, who advised filing of a Revision Petition before this Commission, in view of the erroneous appreciation of facts and evidence by the State Commission. The Petitioner contended that the filing of the Revision Petition was delayed due to administrative formalities, as the relevant file had to be examined by multiple departments and officers, which was necessary to assess the feasibility of filing the Revision Petition. Thereafter, they approached the present counsel in New Delhi and furnished necessary documents for drafting. However, preparation of the Petition was further delayed as numerous annexures were found to be dim and illegible, and many documents were in vernacular language requiring translation, which consumed additional time. The draft Revision Petition and annexures were subsequently finalized and submitted for fairing and filing. Thus, a delay of 656 days has occurred in filing the Revision Petition. The Petitioner contended that at all times they were diligent and committed to pursuing legal remedies, and the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was caused by circumstances beyond their. The Petitioner sought condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent filed a detailed reply opposing the application seeking condonation of delay, categorically denying the factual assertions made by the Petitioner. It was refuted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the merits of the house in question. The Respondent contended that the construction was in accordance with the approved plans and all requisite amenities were available. Allegations regarding the complainant’s reluctance to accept the property and claims of judicial mis-appreciation are dismissed as baseless and irrelevant to the present application. The Respondent emph