1. The present revision petition filed by Sh. Rajapandi, the Petitioner / complainant, is directed against the impugned order passed by the State Commission dated 18.11.2013. The impugned order is very interesting and, therefore, the same is hereby reproduced, as under :- "Appellant called absent. No representation for appellant. In spite of specific adjournment given for appearance of the appellant, today also appellant has not appeared. The appeal is pending for arguments from 07.10.2011 till today for various hearings on 28.10.2011, 27.12.2011, 31.01.2012, 02.03.2012, 02.04.2012, 16.07.2012, 14.08.2012, 07.09.2012, 20.12.2012, 08.02.2013, 21.02.2013, 21.02.2013, 05.04.2013, 04.06.2013, 12.07.2013, 15.07.2013, 21.08.2013, 25.09.2013 and 09.10.2013. Hence, the case is specifically posted today (18.11.2013) for appearance of the appellant. But today also, there is no representation for the appellant. Appellant is also absent, thereby showing that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case. Respondent''s counsel present. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal on file. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default".
2. Thereafter, the present revision petition was filed in this Commission, on 08.12.2014, after a delay of 253 days, as calculated by the Registry. However, I am of the considered view that there is much more delay in filing of this revision petition, which starts from 07.10.2011. As a matter of fact, more than three years'' have elapsed. This is a huge delay. The delay has been explained in para No.3 of the application for condonation of delay. No explanation has been given as to why the petitioner could not appear before the State Commission on as many as 21 consecutive dates. The application is conspicuously silent about it. The day-to-day delay was not explained.
3. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay, in which it is submitted, at Para No. 3, as under:
" 3. That the appellant herein most respectfully submits that the Petitioner herein has
received the copy of the impugned order from her counsel Mr. S. Natarajan only on
06.01.2014. Thereafter, Petitioner got serious financial struggle due to the death of
her husband and she is duty bound to take care of her son''s education. Then the
petitioner has taken great effort to collect relevant documents from her counsel at
Chennai which is 300 kms away from her native place, i.e., Salem and subsequently
she contacted local counsel at Salem and through him, she arranged counsel at New
Delhi with great struggle. In such process the delay occurred in filing the present
appeal".
4. It must be borne in mind that the expression "sufficient cause", cannot be erased from
Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the
very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and C.P. Act, 1986. The time for disposal of a
complaint case and time for disposal of appeals and revision petitions are fixed by the C.P.Act,
1986. In such a huge delay, the discretion is not to be used in favour of the petitioner. The
following authorities go to dovetail this case.
5. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority , IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras. There was delay of about 152 days'' in this (Anshul-supra) case.
6. In R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 , it has been observed that " We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the Special Appeal Leave Petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition ".
7. In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd ., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 , it has been observed that " It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
8. Similar view was taken in Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain - 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68 , it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer''s office and enquired about the case.
9. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83 , it was laid down that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed.
10. In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845 , it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor has he did sent any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.
11. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se . Negligence of a litigant''s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92 .
12. In a recent authority in the Office of the Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012, by the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, it was held that :-
"13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies
and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for
the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation
that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit
for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper
explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates,
according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent
reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay.
13. See also Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006) ,
decided on 08.10.2010 , , in which it was held;
"The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps
within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary
delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been
avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon,
P.Ramanatha Aiyar, 3 Edition, 2005]". rd
14. The Hon''ble Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager,
National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided
on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the
delay of 13 days .
15. Likewise, delay of 78 days'' was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013.
16. Again, delay of 77 days was not condoned in case Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
17. In view of the aforesaid latest authorities, it is difficult to condone the delay of more than three years''. Justice delayed is not only justice denied. It is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined. The case is hopelessly barred by time. The revision petition is, hereby dismissed.
