S.M. CHOPRA vs HUDA & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 627 of 2004 - HUDA & Anr. Vs. S.M. Chopra by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum against OP/respondent and learned District Forum vide order dated 23.12.2003 allowed complaint and following directions were given :

"1. The respondents are ordered to overhaul the account of the complainant in a manner that the respondents will charge only 7% simple interest from the complainant that too with effect from 11.4.77 - the date of offering of physical possession of the plot in question. The respondents will also not charge any penalty, extension fee till 11.4.77 from the date of allotment of the plot in question.

The respondents are also ordered to pay interest on the deposit of the complainant on the same rate as mentioned above w.e.f. from deposit till the delivery of the possession of the plot in question.

The respondents are further ordered to make a fresh offer of the possession of the plot in question within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order.

The respondents are further ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

The respondents are also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order. Complaint has been disposed of accordingly".

OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal without condoning delay against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as appeal was barred by limitation, learned State Commission should not have decided appeal on merits without deciding application for condonation of delay in favour of the OP; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order

be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to firstly decide application for condonation of delay and then decide appeal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there was delay of only 42 days in filing appeal, it may be condoned here and revision petition may be disposed of.

Admittedly, OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 42 days without condoning delay. Learned State Commission ought to have decided firstly application for condonation of delay and in case delay condoned, learned State Commission should have decided appeal on merits. As learned State Commission decided appeal on merits without condoning delay, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to firstly decide application for condonation of delay and then decide appeal on merits, if required. Merely because there is delay of only 42 days, this Commission at this stage cannot condone delay and decide revision petition on merits because appeal could not have decided on merits by learned State Commission without condoning delay.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 6.12.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 627 of 2004 - HUDA & Anr. Vs. S.M. Chopra is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide firstly application for condonation of delay and then decide appeal on merits, if required.

Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 19.04.2016.