ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 27.03.2023 in Appeal No. 1324 of 2018 of the State Commission Haryana arising out of Order dated 15.01.2018 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 663 of 2016.

2.       It appears that the District Commission’s Order was passed on 15.01.2018.  Feeling dissatisfied with the Order an appeal was filed by the petitioner in the State Commission.  As the appeal filed by the petitioner in the State Commission was with the delay of 287 days the same was dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

3.       Feeling aggrieved by the same the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 

4.       The present petition has also been filed with reported delay of 89 days.  However, in the interest of justice and in view of the explanations regarding the delay given by learned counsel for the petitioner and also in order to look into the correctness of the State Commission’s impugned Order the delay in filing the revision petition stands condoned.

5.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 27.03.2023 of the State Commission and the grounds of petition.

6.       Only submission made by learned counsel is that the petitioner is an illiterate person so far as her knowledge in English is concerned and is not a law-knowing person and had given her signatures on the blank forms of the bank and being not well versed English she was unaware about the Order passed by the District Commission and could not know about its contents. That is the sole cause of the delay which deserves to be condoned, according to learned counsel.   

7.       Normally, the Bench leans favourably towards the defaulting petitioner who fails to file the petition within the limitation period.  It is ordinarily preferred to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation.  But while saying so it does not imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided can either be blissfully ignored or soft paddled at will.  Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment on law of limitation.  The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with.  In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period.  It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the Bench that there were justifiable reasons which explain as to why the petition was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Bench cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion which this Bench exercises in the matters of condonation of delay is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously.  The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the petitioner which seek judicial indulgence in this regard.   

8.       When this Bench goes through the impugned Order it finds that it has been noted by the State Commission in the Order that in the home loan application which was moved on behalf of the petitioner her qualification was mentioned as Ph.D.  It has also been noted by the State Commission that the certified copy of Order shows the date of preparation of copy as 18.01.2018. It has also been noted by the State Commission that the date of is