AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this revision filed against the order dated 14.12.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the petitioners/opposite parties have filed application seeking condonation of 116 days delay in filing petition. Ground on which delay is sought to be condoned has been set out in para No. 3 of application as under: "3. That there is a delay of 116 days in filing the revision petition as the � case was misplaced in the office of the petitioners and could be traced. Thereafter, when the file was traced, since the matter relates to the Government, the file has to go through various officers for advice and approval, which took sufficient time. Further, when the officers approached the concerned Advocate, he found that almost all the documents were in Hindi and that requires translation, which took some time and the instant revision petition is filed immediately without causing any further delay."
TO be noted that the date and month of the tracing out of file which was allegedly missing, designations of the officers through whom the file was routed together with date(s) and month(s) of movement upto the stage of according approval by the competent authority to file revision, time taken in translating the documents in Hindi in the English and the date/month when the Counsel was approached for drafting revision petition have not been disclosed in said para 3. On basis of vague allegations as they stand the petitioners cannot be allowed condonation of inordinate delay of 116 days in filing revision. It is pertinent to mention that the appeal against the main order of District Forum dated 12.6.1993 was also dismissed by aforesaid order dated 14.12.2005 as barred by limitation. For the foregoing discussion, condonation application is dismissed being vague. Revision petition too dismissed as barred by limitation.