Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sarada Construction & Ors vs Amar Bhattacharya on 8 September, 2016
1 48 08.09.2016
mb In the High Court At Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. 2622 of 2016 Sarada Construction & Ors.
-Vs.-
Amar Bhattacharya Mr. Srijan Nayek, Mr. Bidyut Baran Biswas, Mr. Arindam Mitra ...for the petitioners Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Ms. Anyasha Das ...for the opposite party This revisional application is directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In the impugned order, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has specifically held that the documents disclosed by the petitioners in their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the grounds of delay in filing the appeal, were procured documents.
2In this revisional application, the petitioners have disclosed only the copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but have intentionally omitted the annexures to the said application, which have been held by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be procured documents.
Mr. Srijan Nayek, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the present case the delay in filing the appeal is only for 54 days and the learned State Commission should have condoned such delay.
It is well settled that for deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the length of delay is not material and it is the sufficiency of the explanation for delay which is to be considered by the court.
In the present case, after considering the documents disclosed by the petitioners to explain the delay in preferring the appeal, the learned Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has found the same to be procured documents. However, there is nothing before this Court to interfere with the above finding of the learned Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 3
For the reasons as aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the application.
Accordingly, the revisional application, being C.O. 2622 of 2016, stands rejected with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the petitioners to the High Court Legal Services Committee, within seven days from date.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the petitioners upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)