Case nº Revision Petition No. 2397 Of 2013, (Against the Order dated 29/02/2012 in Appeal No. 206/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra) With Ia/3987/2013,Ia/3988/2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 29, 2013 (case 1. Anil Ajit Mehta and Ors. 2. The Senior Superittendent Of Post Office Vs 1. Union Of India and Anr. 2. Prachi Anil Mehta 3. Anil Ajit Mehta)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, Advocate for Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Advocate
PresidentMr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
Resolution DateNovember 29, 2013
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


J. M. Malik, Presiding Member(Oral)

  1. Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, learned proxy counsel for Mr. Nitin Lonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He states that Mr. Lonkar has gone out of station and seeks an hour time to seek instructions. Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, learned proxy counsel appears after an hour and submits that there are valid grounds for delay and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para 2, which is reproduced as under:

    "2. That after the judgment of the Hon''ble State Commission petitioner approached his local lawyer, who advise him not to prefer any revision against the impugned order in any court of law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot approach in this Hon''ble Commission in time. Now some other Advocate advised me that I may file the Revision Petition before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Therefore, I am filing this present revision. The delay of 386 of days is not intentional or deliberate. Therefore, this Hon''ble Commission may please be condone the delay in the interest of justice and circumstances mentioned as above beyond the control of the petitioners."

    This argument lacks conviction. There is huge delay in filing this revision petition. Day to day delay of 386 days has not been explained. The expression ''sufficient cause'' cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT