AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 04.08.2014, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 23.07.2012 was dismissed as barred by limitation. A perusal of the record would show that there was a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal and an application dated 26.10.2012 was filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application to the extent it is relevant reads as under: - "3. That the Appellant first time came to know about the order on receipt of the show cause notice alongwith the application dated 24.09.2012 in Executing Case No. 15/2012 at the office of the Appellant situated at Raipur, however the copy of the order was not attached with the application.
That after receiving the show cause notice, the Raipur Office contacted his Advocate Shri Subhash Chander Singh, Raigarh and came to know that the final order has already been passed in the matter and the copy of the order has been misplaced from the office of the Advocate. Regarding this fact the affidavit of the concerned Advocate is enclosed.
That the Advocate Shri Subhash Chander Singh, Raigarh has applied for the chargeable second copy of the same."
WE find that the petitioner Company placed on record an affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander Singh, Advocate who was representing it before the District Forum. In his affidavit, Sh. Subhash Chander Singh, Advocate stated that the copy of the order of the District Forum supplied to him by the said forum had got misplaced somewhere in his office. Accordingly the same could not be sent to the office of the petitioner Company at Pune. The petitioner also filed an affidavit of Mr. Anurag Sen, Manager in its Regional Office at Raigarh. The said affidavit would show that the petitioner Company came to know of the impugned order only on receiving the show cause notice dated 24.09.2012, issued by the District Forum in Execution Case No. 15/2012 which the complainant had filed for execution of the order passed by the District Forum. The affidavit further shows that on receipt of notice, Mr. Anurag Sen immediately visited Raigarh and contacted the Advocate appointed by the petitioner Company, but being out of station, the Advocate was not available. He again went to Raigarh on 06.10.2012, but even at that time, the Advocate was out of Raigarh. Thereafter, Mr. Anurag Sen again visited Raigarh on 03.10.2012, 15.10.2012 and 19.10.2012 but was not able to contact the Advocate. The Advocate eventually met Mr. Anurag Sen on 25.10.2012 and Mr. Sen was apprised of the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the District Forum. The petitioner Company applied for a certified copy of the order on 25.10.2012 and the appeal was filed before the State Commission on 26.10.2012 without even waiting for the certified copy of the order.
FROM the above referred affidavit, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was not deliberate and it happened because of the copy of the impugned order having been misplaced in the office of Mr. Subhash Chander Singh, Advocate, who was representing the petitioner Company before the District Forum. Immediately on receipt of the notice of the execution petition, the representative of the petitioner Company visited Raigarh a number of times and as soon as he was able to meet Mr. Subhash Chander Singh, Advocate, certified copy of the order of the District Forum was applied for. In fact, the petitioner was vigilant enough to file an appeal before the State Commission without even waiting for the certified copy of the District Forum order. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/ - as cost to the complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The parties shall appear before the concerned State Commission on 16.12.2014. The cost shall be paid on the first date of hearing before the State Commission. We also request the State Commission to decide the appeal within six months of the parties appearing before it, in terms of this order. The stay application filed by the petitioner/appellant alongwith the appeal will be taken up for hearing on the date we have fixed before the State Commission and appropriate order on that application will be filed soon thereafter.