M/S. Sunita Construction vs Pandurang Shankar Petkar

The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 190 days as mentioned in the application IA/17038/2019 for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the revision petition could not be filed within the period of limitation since it took time to get the translation of the documents from Marathi to English and in the month of August, 2019, the Advocate who was preparing the revision petition, got designated as Senior Advocate of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this further delayed the matter. It is submitted that in this eventuality the petitioner had to appoint another counsel, which took considerable time.

It is submitted that the delay is, thus, beyond the control of the petitioner and should be set aside/condoned.

We have heard the arguments and perused the record. From the application itself, it is apparent that no dates are mentioned in the application. The statute has provided 90 days for filing the revision petition and expects that the parties complete all the formalities within that period and must honour the letters of the law. Ground that it took time to get the translation done, whether is a sufficient ground or not, needs to be considered. It is also apparent from the argument of learned counsel that the learned counsel who had been assigned the revision petition got designated as Senior Advocate of Hon'ble Supreme Court only in August, 2019 and that was obviously after the expiry of period of limitation, hence, this cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The parties are required to explain the delay of each and every day beyond 90 days. Only the time that was taken for getting the translation done has been explained. In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and where sufficient reasons are not shown, the Courts have no other jurisdiction/discretion but to dismiss the complaint. 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."

In the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) , Hon'ble has given the guidelines which needs to be followed by the Court/Commission while determining whether there was a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

"4. 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."

Also in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that special nature of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 needs to be kept in mind while dealing with such applications. Hon'ble 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."

Only ground is that much time was spent in translating documents from Marathi to English. This explanation is not a reasonable ground. We found no reasonable ground for condoning the delay. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed.