AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THERE is bar of limitation in this appeal. The District Forum, Faridkot vide its order dated 18-9-1991 allowed the complaint of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the opposite party before this Commission, filed this appeal on 17-3-1992. The period prescribed for filing the appeal is 30 days. The appeal was filed after 84 days of the expiry of the period of limitation. The application for condonation of delay was submitted. It was accompanied by an affidavit of Shri S.K. Bhatia, Account Officer. The reason given in the application for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation is stated to be that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the telephone department on 24-10-1991 and the department instructed the District Attorney, Faridkot to file an appeal before the State Commission on 22-11- 1991. The District Attorney then moved the Legal Remembrancer, Punjab on 23-1-1992 for this opinion for filing the appeal. It is said that when nothing was heard from the office of the Legal Remembrancer, Punjab then Shri Bhim Singh, Inspector was instructed to contract the Central Government Standing Counsel at Chandigarh on 28-2-1992. THEREafter the District Manager issued orders for filing the appeal on 5-3-1992 and the appeal against the impugned order was however, filed by the Telephone Department on 17-3-1992.
AFTER the expiry of limitation, the applicant is bound to explain the delay in filing the appeal day to day. This he has signally failed to do so. Having carefully considered the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit of the applicant, we are of the opinion that the applicant has miserably failed to make out sufficient cause for presenting the appeal 84 days after the expiry of period of limitation. We find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and dismiss the same. Inevitably, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed because of bar of limitation. Appeal dismissed.