State Bank Of India vs Sukhbir Singh

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed under section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 11.04.2022 of the State Commission in I.A. No. 705 of 2021 in First Appeal No. 296 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 28.01.2013 of the District Commission in complaint no. 238 of 2008.

Petition has been filed with a delay of 380 days. The application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed along with this Petition. Hence, the counsel has been heard firstly on the application seeking condonation of delay in order to see whether the same deserves to be allowed or not.

Submission of the learned counsel is that the Petitioner had been pursuing this matter with sincerity and has not shown any negligence in the mater and had also pursued the same in right earnest. It is pointed out that at some stage during the pendency of the Appeal before the State Commission, the matter was not listed for a long period of time and as such an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 705 of 2021 was moved on behalf of the Petitioner to fix some date in the appeal. That I.A. was allowed and the Registry of the State Commission was directed that the next date of hearing in the Appeal may be intimated to the Petitioner / Appellant. Submission is that inadvertently the next date of hearing was wrongly noted on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant and therefore, appearance could not be duly made on the date fixed. Further submission is that Clerk of the representing Advocate kept visiting in the State Commission from time to time to know the correct date but correct information regarding the next date of hearing in the matter was not supplied to him. Submission is that actually it was  only on 06.04.2023, when the Respondent visited the Petitioner’s Branch, it gave letter dated 06.04.2023 along with copy of the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the State Commission and also the copy of the Order dated 06.02.2013 passed by the District Commission. It was only after going through the aforesaid Order of dismissal of the Appeal that the Petitioner / Appellant could acquire the knowledge of the impugned Order. Contention is that the period of limitation ought to be counted from the date of such knowledge and all the period that lapsed after passing of the impugned Order till the date of acquiring such knowledge should not be reckoned with while counting the period of limitation.

The counsel has further reiterated the submissions as have been mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay. It is further contended that in such circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the Petition should be admitted.

Ordinarily we tend to adopt a liberal approach on the aspect of considering the point of condonation of delay and lean to take an indulgent view towards the side who seeks such condonation. We prefer that a matter be decided on merits rather than be closed at the threshold stage i.e. on the ground of delay, but that does not imply that we may ever ride roughshod over the statutory requirement regarding the law of limitation wherever it has been provided by the legislature in its wisdom. It does not need much elaboration to state that when the period of limitation expires it simultaneously gives rise to a right which accrues to the other side and the other side cannot be divested of its accrued right for no adequate reason, that is why, whenever there is a delay, and whenever condonation on that aspect is sought by a party, it has to discharge the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds relying upon which such delay may be condoned. It goes without saying that such explanation has to be genuine and not an explanation just for the sake of explanation. Anything and everything said to bridge up a considerable gap of delay is not to be termed as legitimate explanation, which has to be sincere, honest and persuasively adequate and worthy of credence.

When the Bench goes through the record of the case and also the contents of the application seeking condonation of delay, it feels constrained to observe that the grounds taken for condonation of delay fall far short of being sufficient and are not at all convincing. The impugned Order clearly mentioned about non-appearance of the Petitioner or his representative on three consecutive dates of hearing and it was on 4th date of hearing when the Petitioner had still failed to appear before the State Commission that the impugned Order was passed. Submission of the learned counsel that it had moved an I.A. for the purpose of listing the matter is an argument which in fact goes against the Petitioner. When the Petitioner or its representative were so consciously watching the proceedings of the case in the State Commission, it is explicable as to how the Petitioner or its representative could remain in dark for such a prolix period of time and they would not know as to when the case has been listed in the cause-list. Even if this Bench believes that the direction on date fixed vide the I.A. about the listing of the case was wrongly noted, the Clerk of the counsel representing was constantly visiting the State Commission according to the submission made before the Bench in order to find the next date of hearing. To assert that even though the dates were fixed and the matter was being taken up from time to time in the State Commission as the order-sheets would bear out, the Petitioner still was failing to acquire the knowledge of the dates which were fixed and the Clerk visiting the State Commission was being constantly mislead by its office and the requisite information was not made available, served or furnished, such kind of explanation does not sound either credible or plausible and appears to be just an explanation for the sake of explanation. The impugned Order shows that the matter was fixed and was taken up on dates 25.08.2020, 08.12.2021, 03.02.2022 and then on 11.04.2022 and for this protracted period of time, the Appellant / Petitioner could not find what is happening to its case is a little too ambitious plea to be countenanced with. In such circumstances, this Bench does not find the necessary factual basis which may persuade the Bench to hold that there was sufficient ground to file this Revision Petition with so much of delay which is neither small nor insignificant.

The Bench feels constrained to observe that it does not see even a semblance of good explanation which may constitute a ground to condone the delay. The onus of the appellant to show the factual basis from which may emanate such ground remains undischarged. The application for condonation of delay being without worth or substance is unworthy of acceptance. Sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming.

The application being sans merit must therefore meet its legal nemesis and as such the same stands dismissed.

As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the Revision Petition too concomitantly stands dismissed on limitation.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.