AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MR . Pattjoshi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. Respondent is not present either in person or through authorised representative. After hearing Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and going through the records, we are clearly of the view that the State Commission was entirely in error in holding that the appeal presented before it by the present Revision Petitioner was barred by time. The impugned order was passed by the District Forum on 15.11.1991. A certified copy thereof was received by the petitioner only on 27.12.1991. The photo copy of the said certified copy has been produced before us and it contains an endorsement ''certified to be a true copy'' with the date 21.12.1991. The appeal was, filed by the Revision Petitioner herein on 18.1.1992 which is well within the period of 30 days from the date on which he was served a copy of the order of the District Forum. The appeal was therefore, perfectly within time and the State Commission ought to have proceeded to dispose it of on the merits instead of dismissing it on the ground of its having been filed out of time. The order of the State Commission is set aside. There will be a direction to the State Commission to restore the appeal to its file and dispose it of on merits, treating the appeal having been filed in time. There will be no direction as to costs.