ANDHRA BANK vs Attaluri Tara Rani

THERE was delay of 170 days when the first appeal was filed before the State Commission. The delay has been explained in para 3 of the affidavit filed by Shri S. Babu Rao, which is reproduced as under: ''''3. The Dist. Forum after hearing both side passed order C.C. No. 89 of 2012 dt. 30 -11 -2012 and the copy of order was dispatched as per C.C. on 4 -12 -2012, but the same was not received by the Appellants. The petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Dist. Forum only during 1st week of April, 2013, when the complainant visited the O.P. No. 2 Bank and informed that her compliant was allowed and the bank is not returning the title Deed and cost is also not paid as directed by the Dist. Forum. Thereafter immediately the Bank contacted their counsel and asked him to verify about the case and the counsel on verification at Dist. Forum came to know that the complaint was allowed on 30 -11 -2012 and he had filed the copy application on 12 -4 -2013 and copy of the order was furnished on 12.4.2013, after receipt of the certified copy the petitioners came to know about the order. After receipt of the order, the Petitioner Bank immediately contacted the controlling authority, the Petitioners are preferring the present appeal before the Hon ''ble State Commission. For getting the instruction of competent authority, and filing the appeal, as such there is a delay of 42 days in filing the present appeal, which is neither wilfull nor out of negligence, but for the reasons stated above. After getting the permission, immediately we entrusted the case to our counsel at Hyderabad for filing the Appeal. ''''

THE petitioner has given a lame excuse in explaining the above said delay. It is clear that free copy of the order was dispatched as per CC on 1.12.2012. There is no allegation that the address mentioned thereon was incorrect. As suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is quite possible that the said letter might have been sent at the alternative address of the said bank. We have also seen the order passed by the District Forum. The order was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant portion runs as follows: ''''This complaint is coming on 16 -11 -2012 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N. Nanajee, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P.V. Ramana Dayal, Advocate for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, this Forum made the following. '''' It is thus clear that the petitioner did not enquire about his case for a period of 170 plus 90 days, total being 250 days, though the service of free copy is must.

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.

SIMILAR view was taken in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies - 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845. It is thus clear that the petitioner remained without any knowledge for a period of about 250 days. It clearly goes to show the negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner.

THERE is no ground for condonation of delay in view of the authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361; Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 (1) SCR 1045, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221.

CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is hopelessly barred by time. The revision petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not possible to produce the document title deed in question because the same is lost. He is at liberty to raise this question before the executing court. The executing court after satisfying that the title deed has been lost shall proceed further. The executing court will come to the rescue of the petitioner after it has proved that the document is lost and compel them to cooperate in getting the duplicate documents. The executing court will be at liberty to impose penalty upon the petitioner for further negligence on the part of the petitioner for the lost of document without any rhyme and reason. The main duty of the executing court is to see that the execution decree stands executed as per law without any harm to the decree holder. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.