AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed application for restoration of revision alongwith application for condonation of delay.
Petitioner submitted that this Commission vide order dated 31.5.2012, issued notice to all the respondents in revision petition subject to depositing Rs. 10.00 lakhs with the Commission and Rs. 10,000/- to each of the respondents for litigation expenses by way of bank draft. On 16.7.2012, Petitioner deposited Rs. 10.00 lakhs with this Commission and on 7.8.2013, Commission granted two weeks'' time to pay Rs. 10,000/- to each of the respondents. On account of non-compliance of the order for payment of litigation expenses, revision petition was dismissed by order dated 25.9.2013. It was, further, submitted that drafts of Rs. 10,000/- have been prepared for six respondents on 22.7.2014 and for two respondents on 5.8.2014, hence, revision petition be restored. Alongwith this application, petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that petitioner was not in touch with his Advocate at New Delhi. It was, further, submitted that Advocate intimated to the petitioner by letter, but, it returned back on account of "insufficient address". The Advocate also tried to contact petitioner on telephone, but, telephone of the petitioner was switched off and ultimately, Advocate at New Delhi contacted Advocate at Bangalore who referred the matter. After sometime, Advocate at Bangalore intimated to Petitioner about dismissal of revision petition. It was, further, submitted that on account of summer vacations, Advocate at New Delhi was out of station who came back on 2.7.2014 and after that drafts were prepared, hence, delay in filing restoration application be condoned.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that as compliance has already been made and delay was not intentional, application for condonation of delay be allowed and revision petition be restored. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that as there is no explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 307 days, the application for condonation of delay be dismissed and restoration application be also dismissed. Perusal of record reveals that this Commission vide order dated 31.5.2012 issued notice to the respondents subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to each of the respondents for to & fro and litigation expenses and order of the District Forum was stayed subject to depositing Rs. 10.00 lakhs by the petitioner with this Commission within six weeks.
Perusal of record, further, reveals that Rs. 10.00 lakhs was deposited by petitioner after three days delay and that delay was condoned later on, but, petitioner did not sent Rs. 10,000/- to each of the respondents as directed and ultimately, by order dated 25.9.2013, revision petition was dismissed for non-compliance. As per restoration application, demand drafts for Rs. 10,000/- were got prepared in the name of six respondents on 22.7.2014 and in favour of two respondents on 5.8.2014 i.e. after about 26 months of the order dated 31.5.2012 and after 10 months of order dated 25.9.2013 by which revision petition was dismissed for non-compliance. No explanation has been given by the petitioner for causing delay in getting demand drafts prepared in the name of respondents.
In application for condonation of delay of 307 days, petitioner submitted that petitioner''s Advocate at New Delhi intimated to the petitioner about dismissal of revision petition by a letter which returned back as the address was insufficient. This Commission by order dated 7.11.2014, directed petitioner to place that letter on record, but, on 5.12.2014, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he could not find that letter which returned back on account of "insufficient address" and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that any intimation was given by counsel appearing before this Commission to the petitioner which returned back due to insufficient address. It was, further, submitted in the application that Advocate tried to contact petitioner on telephone but telephone of petitioner was switched off which cannot be believed because normally, telephone cannot remain switched off for number of days. Petitioner''s counsel has not filed affidavit in support of all these contentions. As there is delay of 307 days in filing restoration application without any reasonable explanation for condonation of delay, this application is liable to be dismissed in the light of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in (i) (2010) 5 SCC 459- Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. VS. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr; (ii) (2012) 3 SCC 563- Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. VS. Living Media India Ltd. And Anr. and (iii) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC)- Anshul Aggarwal VS. New Oklha Industrial Development Authority. As application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed, restoration application is also to be dismissed.
Consequently, I.A. No. 5749 of 2014 for condonation of delay and M.A. No. 382 of 2014 for restoration of revision petition are dismissed.