S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson
This Application is filed to condone delay of 96 days in filing the Application to restore IA 372/2022, which was dismissed on 07.09.2023.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the delay is explained in para 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of Petition and as reasons given in that para are sufficient to explain delay of 96 days, delay may be condoned. He further submitted, as delay is only 96 days, which is not willful nor deliberate, but due to the reasons mentioned in para 4, the Application may be considered.
Respondent Institution filed Counter disputing the Affidavit averments, contending that Petitioners have not produced any substantial document to show as to when he gained the knowledge of impugned Order. It is also contended that Petitioners have miserably failed to explain the circumstances that prevented Petitioners /Appellants to approach this Court in time with restoration Application. It is further stated that no medical certificate for the illness is filed along with Application. Advocate for Respondent Institution reiterated the same during the course of arguments.
I have perused the Affidavit para 4 and Counter Affidavit para 11.
According to Petitioners, due to Rheumatic pain and poor financial condition, he could not come down to Chennai immediately to file restoration Application and only in 3rd week of December, 2023, Petitioner could recover from his Rheumatic pain and raise money from their children and came to Chennai to file restoration Petition. Even if this fact is taken into consideration, from his statement, it is clear that, from 3rd week of December 2023, Petitioner is relieved off his pain and could raise fund from their children. Admittedly, this Application is filed on 12.01.2024, in between 3rd week of December, 2023 to 12.01.2024, there are three weeks time left, which is unexplained by Petitioners/Appellants.
As rightly objected by Financial Institution, no supporting document for the disease indicated (Rheumatic pain) in the Affidavit is filed even after taking a specific objection in para 11 of Counter; the Petitioners did not show any interest in producing any document in support of ill-health that he suffered which caused delay in filing Restoration Application.
As per Section 20 (3) of RDB Act, 1993, Petitioners shall explain delay satisfactorily. As seen from record, only first Petitioner filed Affidavit giving above reasons and second Petitioner, who can as well file restoration Petition, did not whisper anything as to why she did not approach this Tribunal to file Application in time.
Considering these aspects, I am of the view that Petitioners failed to explain the delay satisfactorily; therefore, the Application IA 83/2024 is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Consequently, Restoration Application is rejected..
