K. Thakshinamurthy vs The Liquidation Officer, State Bank Of India Supervising Staff Cooperative Building Society Ltd

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 2703 days i.e. after almost nine years. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed being IA No.4052 of 2016. Arguments are heard on this application. The only arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not pursue its appeal which was dismissed in default due to the fact that he was in jail under corruption charges from December, 2002 to 14.10.2014. He was working as a branch manager with the respondent and the respondent had filed the complaint of corruption charges against him in which CBI arrested him after making enquiries. After the trial he was convicted and sentenced.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Sufficient grounds are required to be shown. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has clearly held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and petitioner /applicant is required to act bonafidely and the circumstances shown were beyond the control which caused the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. 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 S.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 bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry 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."

It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless reasonable grounds are shown, delay should not be condoned and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B..Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 SC has defined how to assess the reasonable grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"5. 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."

In the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that special nature of Consumer Protection Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the application for condonation of delay and the delay should not be condoned as a matter of right. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"5. 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 Fora."

In the case of Post Master Vs. Balram Singh Inaram Lodhi III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that condonation of delay is an exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"29. 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.'

In the case of Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. -vs- Union of India (UOI) AIR2019 SC 505, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held as under :

15..... "Administrative difficulties would not be a valid reason to condone a delay above and beyond the statutory prescribed period Under Section 34 of the 1996 Act."

In the present case, the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed by the District Forum. This order was challenged by him before the State Commission in appeal. He however did not pursue the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. This order has been impugned before this Commission by way of revision petition which has been filed after nine years. The only ground shown is that he could not file the revision petition as he was in jail, arrested in a corruption case, faced trial and undergoing sentence.

Admittedly, the petitioner had been pursuing his criminal cases while in jail, he had engaged the counsels for contesting those matters which were criminal in nature. There was nothing to stop him from engaging a counsel to file the Revision Petition within time. The delay is enormous and certainly this ground alone cannot be termed as sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The application has no merit, the same is dismissed.

Consequent there upon, the present revision petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.