Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 407 (ORI)

Indusind Bank v. Narayan Patra

2014-07-14

G.P.SAHOO, R.N.BISWAL, S.MOHANTY

body2014
Order Misc. Case No. 358 of 2014 This relates to a petition for condonation of delay. There is delay of 724 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in C.D. Case No. 170 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that even though the impugned order was passed on 23.2.2012, the copy thereof was supplied to the counsel of the petitioner engaged before the District Forum on 8.1.2013, but he neither sent it nor communicated the order to the petitioner. On 5.3.2014, petitioner received notice in Execution Case No. 23 of 2013 arising out of C.D. Case No. 170 of 2007 and immediately on the next date, he approached the District Forum, Puri and obtained certified copy of the impugned order on the same date. On 7.3.2014, the said copy was sent by the petitioner/appellant to the Corporate Office at Chennai for approval and on 14.3.2014 received the approval for filing of the appeal. Immediately, thereafter, petitioner/appellant handed over the brief to the advocate engaged in the appeal as 15.3.2014 to 17.3.2014 were public holidays, the appeal was filed on 18.3.2014. So, the delay caused in preferring the appeal was neither intentional nor due to negligence and as such, the misc. case should be allowed. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order was received on 8.1.2013 by the counsel engaged on behalf of the petitioner before the District Forum. It appears improbable that he did not communicate the result of C.D. Case No. 170 of 2007 nor sent the copy of the impugned order to the petitioner and only on 5.3.2014 on receipt of notice in Execution Case No. 23 of 2013, the petitioner/appellant applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on 6.3.2014 and received the same on the same date. If in fact the counsel engaged on behalf of the petitioner before the District Forum did not send the copy of impugned order nor did communicate the result of C.D. Case to the petitioner even after obtaining the copy of the impugned order on 8.1.2013, the petitioner was expected to take some action against him, but there is nothing in the misc. case to show that any such action was taken. case to show that any such action was taken. No affidavit has also been filed by the counsel engaged by the petitioner before the District Forum to the effect that even though he received the copy of the impugned order on 8.1.2013, he did not send it nor communicate the result of the C.D. Case to the petitioner. So, the grounds taken in the misc. case for condonation of delay do not inspire confidence. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 724 days in preferring the appeal and accordingly, the misc. case is dismissed and consequentially, First Appeal No. 158 of 2014 also stands dismissed. Records received from District Forum, Puri be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.