AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is a delay of 148 days in filing of this Appeal. IA 11243 of 2023 has been filed seeking condonation of delay on the ground that though the impugned order was passed on 02.03.2023, certified copy was received on 10.03.2023, due to the summer vacation the Counsel had gone to his native place and returned in the last week of June 2023, and that only thereafter the Counsel took time for preparing, drafting and filing the present Appeal.
In “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)”, has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held as under:
"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.”
While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court has held as under:
“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 instant case, the cause shown for delay is not sufficient since the impugned order has been challenged much after the period of limitation provided for the reason that the Counsel was away on vacation. It is also evident that much later the counsel was also changed. The cause shown for condonation of delay is not sufficient. IA 11243 of 2023 is therefore disallowed. The Appeal is consequently dismissed as being barred by limitation, under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.