ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 on delay condonation application and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This appeal, with a delay of 101 days’, has been preferred by the appellant – complainant against the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, thereby returning his consumer complaint No. 81 of 2008, so as to present the same before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. In the affidavit dated 04.01.2012 (Paper No. 2) filed by the appellant in support of the delay condonation application (Paper No. 1), it has been averred that the consumer complaint was decided by the District Forum per order dated 25.08.2011; that after the decision of the consumer complaint, the respondents contacted the appellant for resolving the dispute outside the court; that the appellant was made to believe that the respondents are resolving the dispute and allotting flat to the appellant; that on 03.01.2012, the appellant received a letter from respondent No. 1, whereby they have allotted a flat worth Rs. 4,87,448/- to the appellant; that on receipt of the said letter, the appellant contacted his counsel, who advised him to file the appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum and thereafter the appeal was filed on 04.01.2012. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed affidavit dated 19.08.2013 of Sh. Santosh Pandey (Paper Nos. 46 to 48) against the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the delay condonation application, thereby stating that they have not offered for resolving the matter outside the court; that no assurance was given to the appellant regarding resolution of the matter and that the flat is being allotted to the appellant; that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal; that the delay in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned and that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal moved by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed his another affidavit dated 11.02.2014 (Paper Nos. 50 to 51) in support of the delay condonation application. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed his another affidavit dated 11.02.2014 (Paper Nos. 50 to 51) in support of the delay condonation application. In the said affidavit, it was stated that the appellant was intending to file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum and in the meanwhile, the respondents contacted him on telephone and told that they are willing to amicably settle the dispute outside the court; that the appellant got allured from the offer made by the respondents; that on receipt of the letter dated 28.11.2011, the appellant contacted the respondents and sought an explanation regarding allotment of flat worth Rs. 4,87,448/- and that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and the same is liable to be condoned. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was made to understand by the respondents that they are willing to amicably settle the dispute outside the court and under the said impression and assumption, the appellant did not file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum and when the appellant came to know that the respondents have allotted a flat of lesser amount to the appellant, he immediately contacted his counsel and filed the present appeal and the delay in filing the appeal being unintentional and bonafide, is liable to be condoned and the appeal is fit to be heard and decided on merits. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that no such assurance was given by the respondents to the appellant for amicable settlement of the dispute outside the court and that the appellant having not shown any sufficient cause or reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the application for condonation of delay merits dismissal and consequently, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by time. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has not made any effort to show the day-to-day delay in filing the present appeal and the reasons for the same. The main stand of the appellant is that he was made to understand by the respondents that they are looking for amicable settlement of the dispute outside the court and, as such, he did not immediately file the appeal against the impugned order. The main stand of the appellant is that he was made to understand by the respondents that they are looking for amicable settlement of the dispute outside the court and, as such, he did not immediately file the appeal against the impugned order. The said stand has been refuted by the respondents. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that although there has been delay in filing the appeal, but the same does not appear to be intentional and deliberate. Only on receipt of the letter dated 28.11.2011 issued by the respondent No. 1, the appellant came to know that he has been allotted flat of the lesser amount and till then, he was under the impression that he may be allotted the required flat and there may not be any need of challenging the impugned order passed by the District Forum by preferring an appeal against the same. It is true that thereafter also, the appeal was filed after a period of more than one month, but it is also to be taken note that thereafter the appellant should have arranged the papers and engaged the counsel and handed over the papers to him for preparing the appeal and thereafter the appeal came to be filed before this Commission on 04.01.2012. 7. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that although the delay in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant, but in order to provide an opportunity to the parties to contest the appeal on merits and for fair and efficacious disposal of the appeal, the delay in filing the appeal need to be condoned. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others; AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623, has held that the Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. The Hon’ble Apex Court further in the matter of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy; AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222, has held that, “it must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. M. Krishnamurthy; AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222, has held that, “it must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and others; AIR 2002 S.C. 1201 , has held that application for condonation of delay should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to party. 9. In the instant case, as is stated above, no malafide or inaction can be attributed to the appellant and hence in view of the above settled law, the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned and the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 before the next date fixed positively. Put up the appeal for admission on 15.12.2014.