1

Consumer Protection DigestOn

Law of Limitation

Acknowledgement - Cause of action arose in 1985 - Liability was acknowledged in 1991 - Complaint filed in 1992 held to be within time - 1999(2) CPC 465 S.C.

—Complaint within limitation from the date of acknowledgement of claim cannot be dismissed as time barred from date of cause of action - 1998(1) CPC 397 Hr.

--Insurance claim filed within limitation from date of acknowledgement - Claim held to be within time - 2001(1) CPC 44 Pb.

—Time of limitation expired - Subsequent writing a letter on the subject does not constitute an acknowledgement - 2000(2) CPC 632 Chd.

Advocate’s fault - Complaint alongwith application for condonation of delay dismissed – Fresh complaint on allegation of mismanagement on part of advocate is not maintainable - 2010(2) CPC 497 N.C.

Appeal as time barred - Undue delay of 691 days in filing of appeal – No cause of delay explained – Order of State Commission dismissing appeal as time barred upheld - 2010(3) CPC 171 N.C.

Appeal by post - Limitation - Date of posting by registered post should be considered the date of filing of appeal under Section 15 of the Act - 1993 CPC 32 Hr.

Appeal presentation - For the purpose of limitation date of presentation and not date of registration of appeal should be taken into consideration - 1998(2) CPC 121 M.P.

Bonds - Period of three years limitation would start when cause of action by denial of payment of bonds had accrued - 2007(1) CPC 599 N.C.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act - Complaint against OP for non delivery of consignment in time – Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground that limitation is not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 - 2009(3) CPC 378 S.C.

Cause of action – Cause of action arises from date of repudiation of claim – Petition not barred by limitation – 2010(1) CPC 282 N.C.

--Cause of action arose on 7.6.1994 – Complaint filed on 5.5.1997 – No satisfactory reason given for delay – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2009(2) CPC 1 S.C.

—Cause of action arose before enforcement of Act, 1993 - Limitation for filing complaint is 3 years from cause of action - 1998(1) CPC 12 Kerala

--Cause of action arose in 1997 – Complaint filed in 2005 – Complaint rightly dismissed as barred by limitation – Merely writing a letter by Panchayat does not create fresh cause of action – 2009(1) CPC 96 N.C.

Certified copy – Delay by department – Petitioner could not file appeal against the Impugned Order – Proper court fee not affixed – Defective application filed – Deficiency in service not proved – Not entitled relief - 2010(3) CPC 588 N.C.

Civil suit/consumer proceedings – Consumer proceedings cannot be said to be civil suit for the purpose of limitation - 2010(3) CPC 373 N.C.

Cock and bull story - A cock and bull story was narrated for condonation of delay by appellant – Relief declined - 2010(3) CPC 88 H.P.

Complaint – Complaint alongwith application for condonation of delay dismissed – Fresh complaint on allegation of mismanagement on part of advocate is not maintainable - 2010(2) CPC 497 N.C.

Computation of limitation - Incident giving rise to claim occurred on 22..2002 but claim was repudiated on 22.2.2007 wherefrom limitation period should have been computed – Complaint filed on .10.2009 held to be time barred - 2010(3) CPC 264 N.C.

Concurrent finding - No convincing, evidence produced to challenge a concurrent finding of Fora below who dismissed complaint as time barred – Appeal dismissed - 2010(2) CPC 51 N.C.

2

Condonation of delay - Abnormal delay of 266 days in filing appeal – Ground of alleged illness found unsatisfactory – Condonation of delay declined – 2010(1) CPC 205 N.C.

--Administrative delay can be condoned if delay in filing appeal is explained with convincing reason - Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. v. Shaik Khadervalli, 1994(2) CPC 537 A.P.

—After deducting time spent in earlier proceedings complaint was still delayed by 308 days - Law of limitation to be applied with all its rigour - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2008(3) CPC 114 Uttarakhand

—Ailment of appellant’s wife not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay as appeal could be filed by registered post - Om Parkash Prasad v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996(1) CPC 247 Bihar

—Allotment of flat in 1998 challenged in 2002 without any application of condonation of delay - Condonation of delay on oral request unjustified - P.U.D.A. v. Jaswinder Singh, 2006(2) CPC 686 N.C.

—An applicant of loan to bank is not a consumer as there is no consideration paid for rendering any service - Manager, UCO Bank v. Suvas Chandra Mohanty, 1996(2) CPC 374 Orissa

—An application for condonation for 3 days delay not to be dismissed on the ground that no affidavit was filed with the application - Headway Finance and Investment Company Ltd. v. Sarla Devi, 1995(2) CPC 685 U.P.

—Appeal against order of District Forum filed after long delay without sufficient ground for condonation of delay - Interference in revision declined - Citibank N. A. v. S.N. Ahmed, 2008(1) CPC 450 N.C.

—Appeal delayed as official having copy of impugned order was on medical leave - Ground is sufficient to condone the delay - State of Punjab through Administrator v. Kasturi Lal, 1998(2) CPC 436 Pb.

--Appeal delayed by six months without explaining delay – Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation - 2009(1) CPC 209 N.C.

—Appeal delayed due to counsel’s negligence - Delay in filing of appeal condoned - 1997(2) CPC 299 Pb.—Appeal filed after delay of 53 days without any explanation for delay - Appeal rightly dismissed as time barred -

Director, Telegraph Traffic v. N. Ananda Kumar, 1999(1) CPC 293 A.P. --Appeal filed with delay of 348 days – To say that papers of file were misplaced by her counsel is not a convincing

reason – Appeal rightly dismissed as time barred – Order upheld – 2011(1) CPC 224 N.C.

--Appeal filed on 26.9.2001 against impugned order dated 16.2.96 - Cause of delay not duly explained - Condonation of delay dis-allowed - 2003(1) CPC 11 N.C.

—Appellant could not proved that delay of 103 days was due to time spent in attending his bed-ridden father – Condonation of delay denied - 2009(1) CPC 509 N.C.

—Appellant fully aware of impugned order - Plea of late delivery of copy of order not acceptable for condonation of delay - Sasangi Engineer (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Ashok Mahadik, 2006(2) CPC 100 N.C.

—Application for condonation of delay of one year without any convincing reason - Appeal rightly dismissed as time barred - Krishan Pradhan v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., 2003(2) CPC 500 N.C.

—Averment made on vague grounds for condonation of delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Raj Kaur v. Harwinder Singh, 2004(1) CPC 581 Pb.

—Averment that copy of order was delivered to complainant’s mother is not sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Sunil Kumar Chadda v. Air India Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 176 Pb.

--Basic facilities not provided – Possession of plot not delivered – Complaint allowed by District Forum – Appeal filed with delay of 181 days – Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause – Not entitled relief - 2010(3) CPC 351 N.C.

—Benefit of time spent in wrong court should be given to complainant - Delay condoned - 2008(1) CPC 22 Hr.—Cause of 53 days delay given as time spent in legal consultation - Condonation declined - 2003(1) CPC 255 Chd.—Cause of action arose on 3.1.1998 - Complaint filed on 26.6.2000 without explaining delay - Complaint rightly

dismissed as time barred - 2003(1) CPC 20 N.C. —Cause of delay in filing of review application due to wrong advice - Ground held not sufficient - Jindal Photo

Films Ltd. v. Smt. Kiran Singla, 2003(1) CPC 557 Pb. —Complaint against doctor filed with the delay of 7 years - Petition dismissed as time barred - Rajesh Kumar v. Dr.

D.P. Bakshi, 2001(2) CPC 262 N.C. —Complaint filed after 2 years without giving any sufficient reason for delay – Complaint dismissed as time barred

- 2009(1) CPC 599 Hr.—Condonation of delay merely on oral request not proper - Order of condoning delay without sufficient cause set

aside - Punjab Urban Development Authority v. S. Gurjinder Singh, 2004(2) CPC 546 N.C. —Condonation of delay of 199 days in filing appeal declined in discretionary powers by N.C. - Interference with

order under Article 136 unwarranted - DDA v. Krishan Lal Nandrayog, 2006(2) CPC 659 S.C.

3

—Contradictory pleas taken by the appellant and not coming to court with clean hands – Condonation of delay declined - 2009(2) CPC 563 H.P.

—Copy of order misplaced by Advocate - Delay of 196 days cannot be condoned as reason is not sufficient - Ranbir Singh Chaudhary v. Telecom District Manager, 2004(2) CPC 225 N.C.

--Copy of order misplaced by Advocate - Reason not sufficient for condonation of delay - Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Limited v. Rajesh Mittal, 2004(2) CPC 345 Chd.

—Copy of order misplaced in the office of Statutory body - No ground for condonation of delay - Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Kasturi Lal Chadha, 1998(2) CPC 551 Pb.

—Copy of order sent to wrong address - Time to be excluded - Delay condoned - 1998(2) CPC 89 Delhi —Copy of order sent with endorsement number and date of despatch - Mere allegation of non-receipt of copy does

not give any right of condonation of delay - 2006(2) CPC 292 N.C.

--Courts are expected to condone delay to do substantial justice unless explanation found to be malafide - Estate Manager Gujarat Housing Board v. Rajkot Grahak Suraksha Samiti, 2003(1) CPC 576 Guj.

—Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity and on mere asking - 2004(2) CPC 660 Chd. —Delay cannot be condoned on the grounds which are found to be vague - 2003(1) CPC 183 Pb.—Delay cannot be condoned on vague grounds - 1996(2) CPC 497 Pb.—Delay cannot be condoned that time was spent in seeking legal opinion - 2003(2) CPC 485 Pb.—Delay cannot be condoned where applicant has committed a gross negligence in prosecution of his case -

Substantial justice to both parties should be aim of the court - 2006(2) CPC 607 H.P. —Delay due to seeking of legal opinion cannot be condoned as it is not sufficient cause - 2002(1) CPC 340 Chd.—Delay due to time spent in translation of document from vernacular to English is not a sufficient ground - 2003(1)

CPC 110 N.C. —Delay in coordination between departments is not a sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing appeal -

General Manager (Northern Railway) v. Anil Kumar Srivastava, 2000(2) CPC 691 Delhi—Delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned on the basis of procedural delay - 2001(1) CPC 534 Delhi —Delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause for delay - 2000(2) CPC 492 Delhi —Delay in filing appeal due to legal opinion given by Department - Reason for delay not satisfactory - P.S.E.B.

through its Chairman v. Sukhdev Singh, 2001(2) CPC 236 Pb. —Delay in filing of appeal due to official process. No sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2001(2) CPC 245

Pb.—Delay in filing of appeal of 127 days - In sufficiency of funds for engaging a counsel is not a reasonable ground

for condonation - Catvision Products Limited v. Nagpur Entertainment and News Network, 2005(1) CPC 357 N.C.—Delay in the interest of justice should be condone if litigant not adopting delaying tactics - 2005(1) CPC 408 Chd.—Delay not to be condoned without giving sufficient reasons 1997(1) CPC 29 Chd. —Delay of 1 month in filing appeal due to time taken in consultation of Housing Board staff - Delay condoned for

sufficient reason - Avas Ayukt, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Dr. S.M. Singh, 2001(1) CPC 300 U.P. —Delay of 1128 days due to frivolous civil litigation - Reason not sufficient to condone delay - 2003(2) CPC 348

N.C. —Delay of 12 days in filing appeal - Delay condoned on the ground of sufficient reason - 1996(1) CPC 412 Hr. —Delay of 12 years in filing complaint without sufficient cause for delay – Condonation of delay declined

- 2009(2) CPC 432 S.C.—Delay of 124 days in filing revision not explained with sufficient ground - Revision merits dismissal - 2007(1)

CPC 478 N.C. —Delay of 125 days due to sufficient reasons, became necessary to be condoned for imparting justice - Delay

condoned - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Brig (Retd.) Karan Singh, 2008(2) CPC 20 Hr.—Delay of 125 days in filing appeal without giving valid reason for delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred -

2003(1) CPC 37 N.C. —Delay of 14 days in filing appeal reason for delay explained as time spent in legal opinion - Condonation of delay

declined - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Mangat Ram & Sons, 2003(1) CPC 314 Pb.—Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal unaccompanied by any application or affidavit for condonation - Appeal

dismissed - The Hindustan Computers Ltd. v. Amarjeet Paul, 1993 CPC 16 Pb. —Delay of 157 days in filing appeal - Illness of one person of appellant company is not sufficient cause for

condonation of delay - 2003(1) CPC 628 N.C. —Delay of 17 days in filing appeal - Sufficient cause shown - Delay ordered to be condoned - 2007(1) CPC 678

N.C.

4

--Delay of 181 days in filing of appeal - Cause for delay as bifurcation of Central Railway found to be insufficient - Union of India v. Kamla Verma, 2004(1) CPC 315 N.C.

—Delay of 187 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned in absence of satisfactory explanation - 2006(2) CPC 441 N.C.

--Delay of 201 days in filing of appeal – Condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause declined - 2010(2) CPC 7 N.C.

--Delay of 205 days in filing appeal – Appeal not filed promptly despite warning – Condonation of delay declined - 2010(3) CPC 179 N.C.

—Delay of 213 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined in absence of satisfactory reason - 2006(2) CPC 692 N.C.

—Delay of 23 days in filing appeal - Delay cannot be condoned on vague grounds - 2003(2) CPC 119 Pb.--Delay of 243 days in filing of revision petition – Procedural delay cannot be taken as a valid reason for

condonation of delay - 2010(2) CPC 30 N.C.—Delay of 28 days due to pendency of writ petition - Time spent in writ petition cannot be excluded for

condonation of delay - 1996(1) CPC 536 N.C. —Delay of 29 days in filing revision - Sufficient reason given for delay - Delay condoned - 2004(2) CPC 704 S.C. —Delay of 30 days in filing appeal not explained - Condonation of delay declined - 2003(1) CPC 14 N.C. —Delay of 310 days in filing in appeal - Condonation of delay on cause of illiteracy declined - Alice Marie v.

Arbitrator, Pondicherry Public Servants Co-op. Stores, 1998(1) CPC 5 Goa—Delay of 332 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay without sufficient reason disallowed - Credit Analysis

& Research Ltd. v. Garuda Visweswara Rao, 2003(2) CPC 45 N.C.—Delay of 36 days in filing of appeal - Plea of illness not supported by evidence - Delay cannot be condoned -

Vandana Bansal (Mrs.) v. M/s Janta Travels, 2002(2) CPC 260 Chd.--Delay of 386 days in filing appeal – Reason for delay was stated due to fault of lower rank officers – Cause for

delay is not sufficient and day-to-day delay must be explained - 2010(3) CPC 60 N.C.—Delay of 40 days in filing appeal - Cause of delay given as official consultation in the case - Reason not sufficient

- Condonation declined - P.S.E.B. v. Sh. Man Mohan Singh, 2002(2) CPC 568 Pb.—Delay of 4-1/2 in filing appeal unexplained - Delay not to be condoned - 2002(2) CPC 563 Pb.

--Delay of 42 days in filing appeal under mistake of fact - Delay condoned - Andhra Bank v. W.M. Thirunavukkarasu, 1997(1) CPC 54 T.N.

—Delay of 443 days not reasonably explained - Appeal rightly dismissed as time barred - 2008(3) CPC 55 N.C. —Delay of 447 days in filing appeal - Official procedure stated to be the cause of delay - Contents of affidavit not

satisfactory - Condonation of delay decline - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Mrs. Kamlesh Sood, 2005(2) CPC 668 Chd.

—Delay of 454 days allegedly due to retirement of concerned officials - Sufficient cause not proved - Condonation of delay declined - 2007(1) CPC 439 N.C.

—Delay of 47 days in filing of appeal - Mistaken advice of Advocate no ground for condonation of delay - Hindustan Motors Ltd. (M/s.) v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 1999(1) CPC 92 Pb.

—Delay of 472 days in filing appeal - Time spent in writ petition cannot be condoned - 2002(2) CPC 286 N.C. —Delay of 498 days in filing appeal without sufficient cause - Appeal barred by time - 2002(2) CPC 214 Chd.—Delay of 524 days in filing appeal not reasonably explained - Condonation of delay declined - 2007(2) CPC 712

N.C. —Delay of 56 days in filing appeal - Contention of loss of case file sent through courier not proved - Condonation of

delay declined - Udham Singh v. General Manager, Telecommunication, 2001(2) CPC 242 Pb.--Delay of 57 days in filing appeal – When court is satisfied that matter requires consideration on merit – Delay in

filing the appeal condoned - 2010(3) CPC 363 N.C.—Delay of 57 days without reasonable cause - Condonation of delay declined - Punjab School Education Board v.

Pal Singh, 2003(2) CPC 463 Pb.—Delay of 6 months in filing of appeal - Reason for delay allegedly due to official procedure not convincing -

Appeal dismissed as time barred - Agra Development Authority v. Smt. Shalendri Bajpei, 2008(3) CPC 149 U.P.—Delay of 60 days in filing of appeal without application for condonation – Appeal dismissed as time barred -

2009(1) CPC 706 N.C.—Delay of 61 days in filing appeal - Misplacement of papers of case not sufficient reason for condonation of delay -

Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Dr. D. Sujana, 2000(1) CPC 213 A.P.

5

—Delay of 64 days in filing of appeal - Brief misplaced by lawyer - Reason for condonation of delay is just and proper - Charanjit Singh v. The Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B., 2000(1) CPC 23 Pb.

—Delay of 7 years filing insurance claim petition without giving reason for delay - Insurance claim dismissed as time barred - 2002(1) CPC 627 N.C.

—Delay of 75 days in filing an appeal - Delay due to departmental process is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Kirpal Singh, 2006(1) CPC 62 Hr.

—Delay of 77 days in filing appeal - Time spent in official consultation not sufficient ground for condonation - Punjab School Education Board, Mohali v. Harpal Singh, 2003(1) CPC 147 Pb.

—Delay of 8 months in filing of appeal – Delay cannot be condoned on lame excuse – 2010(1) CPC 124 N.C.

—Delay of 818 days in filing appeal - Allegation of wrong address cannot be accepted when was duly served by substituted service - 2003(2) CPC 82 N.C.

—Delay of 9 months in filing of appeal – Delay cannot be condoned on vague grounds which were found to be unsatisfactory – 2010(1) CPC 630 U.P.

—Delay of about 130 days due to pendency of complaint before State Commission - It had no pecuniary jurisdiction resulting in withdrawal of complainant - As original complaint was within limitations, condonation of delay justified - Kohinoor International v. Intra Ship, 2007(2) CPC 324 N.C.

—Delay of eight months in filing revision after SLP was allowed to be withdrawn to seek remedy before the Commission - Condonation of delay rightly declined - 2007(1) CPC 635 N.C.

—Delay of one day in filing a complaint/appeal - No note of Registry on file about date of actual receipt of complaint through post - Delay condoned - Renu Duggal (Smt.) v. M/s. Carryco Carriers, 1999(1) CPC 248 Pb.

--Delay of two years in filing a complaint - Cause of action being in continuity condonation of delay justified - Md. Suleman Ansari (DMS) v. Shankar Bhandari, 2005(2) CPC 313 S.C.

—District Forum not functioning at a relevant time - Delay in filing complaint condoned - 1998(2) CPC 511 Pb.—Each and every day’s delay should be explained with sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Preetinder

Singh Lehl v. Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, 2004(2) CPC 333 Chd.—Filing of appeal delayed by 23 days due to negligence of legal department of the P.S.E.B. - Delay due to official

procedure does not constitute a sufficient reason for condoning delay - 2001(2) CPC 255 Pb.—Filing of appeal delayed by 57 days - Condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient reason declined - Punjab

State Electricity Board v. Darshan Singh, 2003(1) CPC 276 Pb.—Handing over of copy of order to third person found to be an after though - Delay of 45 days in filing appeal

cannot be condoned - Corporate Product Manager, M.R.F. Ltd. v. Mehar Singh, 2004(1) CPC 178 Pb.—Heavy work load of counsel is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal - Pradeep Kumar

v. Assistant Finance Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board, 2000(2) CPC 687 Delhi —Ignorance of law of limitation is not sufficient ground - S.Roshan v. Saigal Associates, 2004(2) CPC 193 Delhi —Illiterate lady filing claim after three years but immediately after coming to know about existence of policy -

Claim cannot be dismissed as barred by time - 2008(1) CPC 343 Chhattisgarh—Impugned order passed in the absence - Delay in receipt of copy - Appeal within 30 days - Delay condoned -

Chief Manager, UCO Bank v. Ram Govind Agrawal, 1996(2) CPC 384 Bihar —Liability for payment of compensation wrongly placed on appellant - Condonation of delay in filing appeal was

granted - State Bank of India v. O.N. Kaul, 1995(2) CPC 375 J.&K. —Limitation expires on a holiday - Application for restoration can be filed on next following day - Arun Kumar

Tandon v. D.E.S.U., 1995(1) CPC 429 Delhi —M.D. was out of station resulting in delay in filing appeal - No affidavit of M.D. produced - Reason for delay not

sufficient - G.P. Forests Development (India) Ltd. v. Baby Tarun minor, 2001(2) CPC 243 Pb.—Mere bald statements cannot serve the purpose of condonation of delay - Each day should be explained -

Rajasthan State Insurance and G.P.F. Department v. Radhey Shyam Goyal, 1994(2) CPC 658 Raj. —Mere report of Kanungo that plot was under litigation is not a satisfactory reason to condone delay of 6

years – 2010(1) CPC 685 N.C.—Misleading Court by deliberate attempt - Condonation of delay declined - 2004(2) CPC 53 Pb.

--Necessary amount with appeal could not be deposited due to loss in business resulting in delay of appeal - Reason not sufficient - Condonation of delay declined - Links Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakeel Ahmed, 2008(2) CPC 735 N.C.

—No affidavit of the Divisional Officer causing delay in official process, produced - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Joginder Singh, Makhan Singh, 2001(2) CPC 244 Pb.

6

—No District Forum constituted by Government causing delay in filing the complaint - Delay deserves to be condoned - Union of India v. Tarsem Goel, 1998(1) CPC 454 Pb.

—No particulars or affidavit of the lawyer giving wrong advice about period of appeal was produced - Appeal with delay of 23 days dismissed as time barred - 2001(2) CPC 247 Pb.

—No satisfactory explanation given for delay of six and half month in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined - Bihar State Housing Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, 2006(2) CPC 209 N.C.

—No satisfactory reason given for delay in filing appeal - Appeal dismiss as time barred - 2001(2) CPC 239 Pb.—No sufficient ground given by petitioner for condonation of delay of 197 days in filing revision petition - Petition

dismissed as barred by limitation - 2007(1) CPC 433 N.C. —Official consultation delayed the filing of appeal - Not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay - 1995(2) CPC

239 N.C. —Official consultation not sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Punjab State Electricity Board v. M/s.

Lakshmi Cotton Mills, 2004(2) CPC 108 Pb.—Official procedure and fault of advocate given as reason for delay of 236 days in filing revision – Reason

not satisfactory - Condonation of delay denied – 2010(1) CPC 150 N.C.--Order not pronounced in the presence of parties - Delay should be condoned - 1993 CPC 662 Delhi—Petition filed with delay of 141 days without explaining delay with sufficient reason – Petition dismissed

as time barred – 2010(1) CPC 262 N.C.—Petitioner pleaded vague grounds for condonation of delay of 116 days - Condonation of delay declined - 2006(2)

CPC 634 N.C.—Postal authorities remarked as “not claimed intimation given” - Non service of notice not proved - Appeal with

delay of 22 months rightly dismissed - 2005(1) CPC 388 Maha. —Poverty is no reason for condonation of delay - 2001(2) CPC 238 Pb.—Prayer for condonation of delay of 417 days due to pendency of review petition - Delay cannot be condoned in the

absence of satisfactory explanation - 2006(2) CPC 284 N.C. —Reason for delay found to be vague - Condonation of delay declined - Ekta Uppal v. Asian Lacto Industries Ltd.,

2004(1) CPC 604 Pb.—Reason for delay of 111 days given that file was moving from table to table – Reason for condonation of

delay is not sufficient – 2009(3) CPC 595 N.C.—Reason for delay was given that Advocate misplaced the document - Condonation of delay cannot be allowed as

reason is not sufficient - 2003(2) CPC 239 N.C—Reason for delay was given that copy was misplaced in the house - Reason not sufficient - 2004(1) CPC 593 Pb.—Reason of delay was given that copy of complaint was not legible - Reason disbelieved by concurrent finding -

Interference in order revision declined - L.D.A. v. Sh. B.S. Sethi, 2003(2) CPC 279 N.C. —Reason of illness of Karta of family found not convincing for delay in filing of appeal - Condonation of delay

declined as reason was not satisfactory - Haridev Chemicals v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 146 Chd.—Revision filed with a delay of 218 days – Allegedly counsel did not inform about decision in time – This

is a usual excuse – Condonation of delay declined – 2010(1) CPC 204 N.C.—Sufficient cause for delay not proved -Condonation of delay declined - 2007(1) CPC 669 N.C.—The words sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction in the matter of condonation of delay - 1995(2)

CPC 229 N.C.—Time barred appeal filed without any application with affidavit for condonation of delay - Relief declined - P.D.

Vyas Marketing (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. Smt. Sushma Kapoor, 2001(1) CPC 395 M.P.—Time spent in appeal filed without certified copy of order - Time cannot be included for condonation of delay -

Amar Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2003(2) CPC 125 Pb. —Time spent in consumer proceedings - Benefit should be given under Section 14 of Limitation in filing a civil suit

- Ashok Leyland Finance Company Ltd. v. Gokran Singh Badauriya, 2003(2) CPC 141 M.P.—Time spent in execution petition wrongly filed - Condonation of delay in filing appeal justified - Raghavendra

Rao v. Director General, Department of Post, 2006(2) CPC 456 N.C. —Time spent in legal opinion cannot be sufficient cause for condonation - 2003(2) CPC 454 Chd.—Time spent in review application which was filed after long delay cannot be condoned in filing appeal beyond

limitation - Ram Dhani Prasad v. Prabandhak, U.P. Co-op. Bank Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 12 U.P.—Time spent in review petition cannot be excluded for condonation of delay - 1993 CPC 472 Pb. —Time spent in review petition filed on wrong advice to illiterate widow - Delay condoned - 2008(1) CPC N.C.

7

—Time spent in review, cannot be excluded - 1993 CPC 471 Pb.—Time spent in seeking legal opinion from Head Office for filing appeal is no ground for condonation of delay -

Sterling Holidays Resorts International Ltd. v. B.R. Bhatia, 2001(2) CPC Pb. 239—Time spent in seeking legal opinion is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay - Divisional Engineer,

Telegraph v. S. K. Dalmia, 1994(2) CPC 273 Bihar

--Time spent in wrong Court - Extension of time should be granted - 1998(2) CPC 130 Hr. —Time spent wrongly in proceedings against wrong person - Delay in proceedings against real person should be

condoned - S.C. Segaram v. ANZ Grindlays Bank, 1995(1) CPC 207 T.N.—Time will start to run not from date of order but from date of communication of order - Vishnath Keserwani v.

Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking through its Executive Engineer, 2000(2) CPC 276 U.P. —Vague allegation of misplacement of file in the office, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay - Improvement

Trust, Ludhiana v. Smt. Neelam, 1997(1) CPC 165 Pb. —Vague ground such as Administrative procedure pleaded for condonation of delay - Grounds not sufficient -

Bharat Sangh, Through S. E. Railway v. Sanjeev Sundaram, 2004(1) CPC 608 C.G. —When there is a “continuing wrong” delay should be condoned - 1998(1) CPC 281 Guj. —Wrong legal advise is no ground for condonation of delay - 2004(2) CPC 96 Pb.—Wrong legal notice and administrative reasons are not sufficient to condone delay of 246 days in filing appeal –

However, delay is condoned to do justice to the appellant victim of wrong decision - 2009(1) CPC 500 N.C.

Condonation on oral request - Allotment of flat in 1998 challenged in 2002 without any application of condonation of delay - Condonation of delay on oral request unjustified - 2006(2) CPC 686 N.C.

Consumer – District Forum awarded huge compensation without deciding the issue of limitation and whether complainant was a consumer on the basis of any evidence – Order quashed – Case remanded for fresh decision - 2009(2) CPC 425 S.C.

Continuing cause of action - Site remained undeveloped for long - It is a continuing cause of action - Complaint not to be dismissed as time barred - 1998(2) CPC 516 Pb.

--A complaint cannot be dismissed on basis of limitation when there is a continuity in cause of action - 1998(1) CPC 663 Pb.

—Appeal cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 1998(2) CPC 391 H.P. —Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred where cause of action is in continuity - 2002(2) CPC 354 Chd.—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 2004(1) CPC 220

Maha.

--Amount for job paid in 1993 whereas OP promised to refund the amount through a letter written in 1997 - Complaint filed in 1998 cannot be treated as barred by limitation - 2002(2) CPC 410 T.N.

—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is a continuing cause of action - 1998(1) CPC 86 Hr.—Complaint cannot be held time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 1998(2) CPC 577 N.C.—Complaint not barred by time when there is a continuity of cause of action - 2000(1) CPC 259 S.C.—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuing cause of action - 2000(1) CPC 686 Pb.—Delay of two years in filing a complaint - Cause of action being in continuity condonation of delay justified -

2005(2) CPC 313 S.C.—Complaint cannot be treated as time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - 2002(2) CPC 392 Ker.

Continuing wrong - When there is a “continuing wrong” delay should be condoned - 1998(1) CPC 281 Guj.

Continuity - Cause of action - Limitation starts from the date of stoppage of continuity of cause of action - 1996(1) CPC 292 J&K

—When there is continuing cause of action petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation - Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah v. M/s. Lata Construction, 1996(1) CPC 205 N.C.

Continuity of limitation - Subsequent showing continuity of time - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2008(1) CPC 681 N.C.

Continuity proceedings - Proceedings being in continuity, question of complaint being time barred does not arise – 2010(1) CPC 254 N.C.

Counsel’s advice - Delay of 47 days in filing of appeal - Mistaken advice of Advocate no ground for condonation of delay - 1999(1) CPC 92 Pb.

8

Date of Order - Date of order under Section 15 of the Act should be construed as date of knowledge - 1992 CPC 704 N.C.

—Limitation starts from the date when order is signed by member of Forum and date of signing is taken as date of pronouncement - 2005(1) CPC 102 U.P.

Delay - Appeal filed with delay of 470 days without sufficient cause – Official process as cause of delay not convincing – Appeal dismissed as barred by time - 2010(3) CPC 502 N.C.

--Complaint filed 6 years after cause of action, without explaining delay - Dismissed as time barred - Dinesh Singla v. M/s Silverline Technologies Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 56 Chd.

--Condonation - No plea about condonation of delay taken in Appeal - Delay cannot be condoned even if appeal is filed by Department - 1998(2) CPC 73 U.P.

—Consumer’s complaint should not be defeated by delays - Subhash Chander v. Union of India, 1994(1) CPC 203 Pb. & Hr. High Court

--Delay of 123 days in filing of appeal without sufficient reason – Appeal dismissed as time barred - 2010(3) CPC 508 N.C.

—Delay of 2 years in settlement of insurance claim amounts to a deficiency in service - 1997(2) CPC 630 Pb.

--Delay of 332 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay without sufficient reason disallowed - 2003(2) CPC 45 N.C.

—Delay of 357 days in filing appeal - Delay without reasonable cause cannot be condoned - Nahar Singh v. Reghuvar, 2003(2) CPC 464 Pb.

—Delay of 4 years in settlement of claim - Act of insurer amounts to deficiency in service - Punjab State Electricity Board v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 88 Pb.

—Delay of 43 days in fling appeal remains unexplained - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana v. Shri Avinash Chander Bhakri, 2001(2) CPC 623 Chd.

—Delay of 6 years in filing the petition not explained - Petition dismissed as time barred - 1996(1) CPC 185 N.C.—Delay of 818 days in filing appeal - Allegation of wrong address cannot be accepted when was duly served by

substituted service - 2003(2) CPC 82 N.C.—Delay of more than 2 years in filing complaint - Delay not explained - Complaint dismissed as time barred -

Registrar, University of Pune v. Mrs. Puja Pravin Wagh, 1998(2) CPC 97 Maha.—Delay of one month in car delivery - Company held liable for deficiency in service - 1992 CPC 626 Hr.—Delay of one year in settlement of claim - Claim to be paid with 12% per annum interest on the amount - Sehgal

Knitwears (M/s.) v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 78 Pb. —Inordinate delay in settlement of insurance claim is perse a deficiency in service - Orintal Insurance Company

Ltd. v. Raghbir Singh, 1994(1) CPC 180 Hr.—Insurance policy for one year - Delay of 8 months in settlement is unjustified - 1995(2) CPC 194 Pb.—Insurer delaying settlement of claim for five years held liable to pay cost of Rs. 20,000 even where insurance

claim was not awarded - 1996(2) CPC 213 N.C. --Insurer made undue delay in settlement of claim - Directed to pay Rs. 1 lac as compensation - 2008(2) CPC 29

N.C. —It is settled that each days delay should be explained by applicant - 2003(2) CPC 360 N.C. —Mere delay in intimation of loss cannot be made a ground for repudiation of claim - 2008(2) CPC 45 N.C.

Delay Condonation - A cock and bull story was narrated for condonation of delay by appellant – Relief declined - 2010(3) CPC 88 H.P.

—Appeal delayed by 82 days due to illness of appellant - Delay condoned - Rita Rani (Ms.) v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2005(1) CPC 438 Chd.

--Cause of action arose in 1993 - Complaint filed in 1997 without giving sufficient reason for delay - Condonation of delay declined - 2003(1) CPC 167 Pb.

--Condonation of delay of 124 days sought on vague grounds – Delay cannot be condoned – 2010(1) CPC 623 U.P.--Delay cannot be condoned unless sufficient reason is shown - 2010(3) CPC 178 N.C.—Delay in filing of appeal due to counsel’s illness - Delay to be condoned - Union of India v. Inder Krishan Kaul,

1998(1) CPC 583 Delhi--Delay of 105 days in filing appeal – Procedural delay cannot be made a sufficient reason for condonation of delay

particularly when case is not strong on merits – 2010(1) CPC 385 N.C.—Delay of 146 days in filing of appeal - Misplacement of certified copy of order is no ground to condone delay -

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Mr. T.L. Vats, 2005(1) CPC 73 Chd.

9

—Delay of 34 days - Delay caused by procedure of Legal Cell is no ground for condonation - General Manager (Phones) v. Sucha Singh, 2003(1) CPC 149 Pb.

—Delay of 347 days cannot be condoned on mere allegation of non-receipt of copy of order - 2004(1) CPC 588 Pb.—Delay of 486 to 551 days in filing appeals - Delay not to be condoned without reasonable cause - Gurmit Kaur v.

Rajbir Singh, 2003(1) CPC 549 Pb.--Delay of 954 days in filing application to set aside exparte order due to fault on the part of Advocate – Delay

condoned for sufficient reason shown - 2010(3) CPC 28 N.C.—Delay of few days in filing complaint due to typhoid fever - Delay deserves to be condoned - 2004(1) CPC 80

Chd.—Delay of one day in filing appeal as copy was not attested by official - Delay to be condoned - Union of India v.

Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, 1999(1) CPC 541 Pb.—Lawyer’s illness is no ground for condonation of delay - Appeal can be filed by other sources - National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Haridev Chemical, 2004(1) CPC 158 Chd.—Shifting of office and misplacement of copy - Not sufficient reason for delay - 2004(1) CPC 177 Pb. --Simple statement that appeal with delay of 49 days could not be filed due to illness of two months is no ground to

condone the delay - 2010(3) CPC 326 N.C.—Vague ground pleaded for cause of delay of 595 days - Condonation of delay declined - Bhupinder Singh Puri v.

Rajinder Singh, 2003(1) CPC 556 Pb.

Delay in implementation – Order of Forum dated 29.10.2001 was complied with on 17.1.2003 – Delay covered by official procedure and not due to any bad intention – Order of imposing penalty by Forum quashed - 2010(2) CPC 345 Pb.

Delay on Day-to-day basis - Delay of 386 days in filing appeal – Reason for delay was stated due to fault of lower rank officers – Cause for delay is not sufficient and day-to-day delay must be explained - 2010(3) CPC 60 N.C.

Delay/limitation - Complaint regarding non-receipt of units filed with delay of 6 years without any explanation for delay – Dismissal of complaint justified - 2009(3) CPC 106 N.C.

Dismissal in Default - Earlier complaint dismissed in default - Second complaint on same cause of action, even within limitation not maintainable - 1996(2) CPC 634 Hr.

Effect of amendment of C. P. Act - Time spent in consumer proceedings was allowed to be excluded by availing section 14 of the Limitation Act for seeking relief from Civil Court – 2011(1) CPC 580 S.C.

Equity - Limitation cannot be condoned merely on basis of equity - 2006(2) CPC 729 Hr.

Execution – Order of Forum dated 29.10.2001 was complied with on 17.1.2003 – Delay covered by official procedure and not due to any bad intention – Order of imposing penalty by Forum quashed - 2010(2) CPC 345 Pb.

--Application for execution allowed - Appeal against the order delayed - Condonation due to lack of sufficient reason declined - 2004(1) CPC 35 N.C.

Exparte order – Delay of 954 days in filing application to set aside exparte order due to fault on the part of Advocate – Delay condoned for sufficient reason shown - 2010(3) CPC 28 N.C.

Extension fee – Cause of action arose in 2002 – Complaint filed in 2007 after 15 years – Complaint dismissed as hopelessly time barred- Mere correspondence cannot extend period of limitation - 2010(2) CPC 303 Hr.

Extension of period - Complaint filed with delay of about 3 years – A letter from another authority directing to approach consumer forum cannot extend the period of limitation – 2011(1) CPC 382 N.C.

False statement - Complainant quoting 85 years against 60 years for condonation of delay - Condonation of delay disallowed - 2003(2) CPC 49 N.C.

Ignorance of law - Ignorance of law is no ground for seeking condonation of delay - 1998(2) CPC 511 Pb.

Illness on ground of delay - Simple statement that appeal with delay of 49 days could not be filed due to illness of two months is no ground to condone the delay - 2010(3) CPC 326 N.C.

Illiteracy – Delay of 2-½ years in filing complaint – Illiteracy is not sufficient ground to condone delay - 2009(2) CPC 568 U.P.

Inordinate delay – Delay of 9 months in filing of appeal – Delay cannot be condoned on vague grounds which were found to be unsatisfactory – 2010(1) CPC 630 U.P.

Lame excuse - Delay of 8 months in filing of appeal – Delay cannot be condoned on lame excuse – 2010(1) CPC 124 N.C.

10

Lawyer’s illness - Delay in filing of appeal due to counsel’s illness - Delay to be condoned - 1998(1) CPC 583 Delhi

Lawyer’s misconduct - Appeal filed by lawyer dismissed on point of limitation and also on merit - Lawyer cannot be held liable for delay in filing appeal - 2000(1) CPC 280 Ker.

Lawyer’s mistake - Copy of order misplaced by Advocate - Reason not sufficient for condonation of delay - 2004(2) CPC 345 Chd.

Legal opinion - Delay cannot be condoned that time was spent in seeking legal opinion - 2003(2) CPC 485 Pb.—Time spent in legal consultation is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2003(1) CPC 255 Chd.—Time spent in legal opinion cannot be sufficient cause for condonation of delay - 2003(2) CPC 454 Chd.—Time spent in seeking legal opinion from Head Office for filing appeal is no ground for condonation of delay -

2001(2) CPC 239 Pb.

Limitation - 1st operation done in 1993 - During 2nd operation in 2002 after more than 10 years gauze found - No application for condonation of delay - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2006(2) CPC 555 Maha.

—A claim cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation when cause of action is continuing - Bank of India v. H.C.L. Ltd., 1994(1) CPC 146 N.C.

—A clause in policy fixing limitation of 12 months for insurance claim - Legal remedy under C.P. Act is not prohibited by such clause - Chairman-cum-Managing Director v. The New India Assurance Co., 2002(1) CPC 523 Orissa

--A Clause in policy prescribing 12 months for filing claim cannot override limitation of 2 years prescribed u/s. 24-A of the C.P. Act - United Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baldev Chand Mahajan, 1999(1) CPC 650 H.P.

—A clause permitting 12 months for filing claim does not effect the period of 2 years given u/s. 24-A of the C.P. Act - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, 1999(1) CPC 652 Pb.

—A complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred where cause of action is in continuity - 2000(2) CPC 58 Chd. —A complaint cannot be dismissed on basis of limitation when there is a continuity in cause of action - Union of

India v. M/s. Modi Industries, Barnala, 1998(1) CPC 663 Pb.—A complaint, where cause of action arose before the enforcement of Act is permissible provided it is not barred by

Law of Limitation - 1991 CPC 280 N.C. —A gauze allegedly left in abdomen during a surgery performed 9 years ago – No objection was raised about

medical negligence during the long period - Complaint held to be time barred - 2010(3) CPC 397 S.C.—A long delay can be condoned under C.P. Act if a sufficient cause of delay is established - 2005(2) CPC 242

Maha.—A stale claim made after 3 years not maintainable - 1991 CPC 43 N.C. —Accepting of price for alternative plot by allotment authority - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred -

2003(1) CPC 112 N.C. —According to Clause 12 of Insurance Policy limitation for claim is 12 months - Claim made after 12 months held

to be time barred - 1993 CPC 414 N.C—Alleged deficiency in service was committed in 1979 - Complaint filed in 1990 is barred by limitation - 1993 CPC

6 N.C. —Allotment of flat in 1998 challenged in 2002 without any application of condonation of delay - Condonation of

delay on oral request unjustified - 2006(2) CPC 686 N.C. —Amending Act prescribing limitation of 2 years came into force on 18.6.1993 - Complaint filed on 18.6.1993 is

governed by old law - Sukanta Sarkar v. Canara Bank, 1994(2) CPC 50 W.Bengal —Amount for job paid in 1993 whereas OP promised to refund the amount through a letter written in 1997 -

Complaint filed in 1998 cannot be treated as barred by limitation - 2002(2) CPC 410 T.N. —An appeal filed after more than 3 years held to be barred by limitation - 1995(2) CPC 26 N.C.—An order dismissing an appeal on ground of limitation with sound reasons not to be upset in revision -

Vishwabharthi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Sharada Chandrasekhara, 1995(2) CPC 331 N.C.

--Appeal against award was filed after one year and 4 months - Appeal is hopelessly time barred - Parbhu Dayal Sewa Ram (M/s.) v. Telecom District Manager, 1995(2) CPC 133 Hr.

—Appeal against order 6.4.99 filed on 26.10.99 without showing sufficient cause for delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Dr. Yuchin’s Nursing Home v. Distt. Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow, 2002(1) CPC 662 U.P.

—Appeal delayed by 58 days without explaining delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred - 2005(1) CPC 645 N.C.—Appeal even after deducting time spent in writ petition was beyond limitation - Appeal stands dismissed as time

barred - Subodh Kapoor v. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh, 1996(1) CPC 566 Chd. —Appeal filed 7 months after the expiry of limitation - Appeal dismissed as time barred - 1994(2) CPC 59 Pb.

11

—Appeal filed after delay of 72 days but within limitation from date of knowledge - Delay condoned - Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Kirpal Singh, 1997(1) CPC 503 Hr.

—Appeal filed after expiry of limitation without giving sufficient cause for delay - Dismissed as barred by time - Vaid Ram Pal Sharma v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, 1994(2) CPC 58 Pb.

—Appeal filed after expiry of limitation without sufficient cause - Dismissed as time barred - 2000(1) CPC 634 Delhi

—Appeal filed at belated stage - No application for condonation - Mere non receipt of order no ground for condonation - Dr. Pawan Sharma v. General Manager, Telephone, 1998(2) CPC 271 Chd.

—Appeal filed beyond 25 days with no application for condonation - Held, time barred 1993 CPC 15 Pb. --Appeal filed on 21.8.2008 against order dated 3.8.2007 – Grant of condonation of delay not convincing –

Appeal dismissed as time barred - 2009(2) CPC 563 H.P.--Appeal filed with delay of 348 days – To say that papers of file were misplaced by her counsel is not a convincing

reason – Appeal rightly dismissed as time barred – Order upheld – 2011(1) CPC 224 N.C.—Appeal filed within 30 days after receipt of copy - Cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation - State Bank of

India v. Citizen Protection Forum, 1997(2) CPC 553 Delhi--Appeal of HUDA with delay of 1824 days was dismissed as time barred by authority below – Taking no

lesson from this order revision was filed with delay of 171 days taking plea of procedural delay – Revision dismissed as time barred – 2010(1) CPC 238 N.C.

--Appeal with delay of 1553 days dismissed by State Commission as no reasonable cause given by appellant for condonation of delay – Presence of petitioner/OP was recorded in order of District Forum – Order of State Commission upheld – 2011(1) CPC 385 N.C.

—Appellant concealing real fact from Court - Condonation of delay disallowed - 1996(1) CPC 382 N.C.—Appellant not receiving copy of impugned order - Filing appeal with promptness with second copy - Delay

condoned - Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (M/s.) v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, 1996(1) CPC 143 Pb.—Appellant’s wife was ill - Delay of 12 days in filing an appeal was condoned - Davinder Singh v. Haryana Urban

Development Authority, 1996(1) CPC 594 Hr.—Application for condonation of delay of one year without any convincing reason - Appeal rightly dismissed as

time barred - 2003(2) CPC 500 N.C. —Application for copy of order given after 30 days of the order - Condonation of delay not granted on ground of

long distance - 2003(2) CPC 81 N.C.

--Auction of godown site held on 21-2-1995 - Site transferred to complainant on 20-5-1996 - Complaint filed on 24-2-1999 is time barred - 2000(2) CPC 309 Chd.

—Benefit of time spent in wrong court should be given to complainant - Delay condoned - N.R. Jhingan v. Dr. Parveen Garg, 2008(1) CPC 22 Hr.

—Builders offered possession of built area in 1991 – Complaint filed in 1996 is obviously time barred - 2010(3) CPC 155 U.P.

—Car after repair detained for four years by dealer for recovery of charges - Time of 4 years should excluded for limitation purpose - Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312 H.P.

--Carrier made party after 11 years – Notice was not given to carrier till they were made party – Complaint time barred as per provisions of Carrier by Air Act, 1972 read with CP Act, 1986 – No relief entitled - 2009(2) CPC 93 N.C.

--Cause of action (negligence) arose in 1997 – Complaint filed in 2003 without giving sufficient cause for delay – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2009(2) CPC 112 N.C.

—Cause of action accrued in March, 1987 - Complainant filed on 23.2.2000, dismissed as time barred - 2002(1) CPC 188 N.C.

--Cause of action arises from date of repudiation of claim – Petition not barred by limitation – 2010(1) CPC 282 N.C.

—Cause of action arose before amending Act, 1993 - Case is governed by old law of limitation (3 years) - V. Murlidhar v. Gokul Estates, 1995(1) CPC 632 T.N.

—Cause of action arose before Amendment Act, 1993 - Limitation for filing a complaint is 3 years - Sharadchandra Raorekar v. Bhopal Development Authority, 1998(2) CPC 121 M.P.

—Cause of action arose before enforcement of Act, 1993 - Limitation for filing complaint is 3 years from cause of action - Coinpar, Centre of Indian Consumer Protection and Research (M/s.) v. S. Chandra Kumar, Managing Partner, 1998(1) CPC 12 Ker.

12

—Cause of action arose before enforcement of Sec. 24-A - Complaint filed within three years of cause of action is not time barred - S. Venkataraman v. M/s. G.K. Constructions, 1997(1) CPC 675 T.N.

—Cause of action arose in 1972 - Complaint filed in 1992 - Such a stale claim cannot be accepted - 2003(2) CPC 342 N.C.

—Cause of action arose in 1974 whereas complaint was filed in 1994 - Complaint is hopelessly time barred - Ganesh Dass v. The Trustee, Provident Fund, 1996(1) CPC 598 Hr.

—Cause of action arose in 1975-1977 - Complaint filed in 1996 rightly dismissed as time barred - 2004(1) CPC 26 N.C.

—Cause of action arose in 1980 - Complaint filed in 1991 - Complaint being time barred, not entertainable - 1992 CPC 637 N.C.

—Cause of action arose in 1983 - Complaint filed in 1992 - Complaint not maintainable - 1992 CPC 641 N.C. —Cause of action arose in 1983 regarding fraudulent withdrawal - Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly time barred

- Punjab National Bank v. Rama Kant Yadava, 1997(2) CPC 687 Bihar —Cause of action arose in 1986 when receipt of deposit was issued - Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly barred by

time - Kewal Ram Thakur v. Senior Superintendent, Post Office, 1997(2) CPC 577 H.P.—Cause of action arose in 1987 - Complaint filed in 1991 is highly belated and is dismissed as time barred - 1994(1)

CPC 694 N.C.--Cause of action arose in 1988 – Complaint filed in 1994 – Complaint dismissed as time barred – 2010(1)

CPC 55 N.C--Cause of action arose in 1988 whereas complaint was filed in 1995 - Complaint dismissed as time barred in the

absence of satisfactory reason for delay - 2007(1) CPC 61 N.C. —Cause of action arose in 1989 - Complaint filed in 1993 - Continuity of cause of action established - Complaint

not to be dismissed as time barred - Lt. Col. (Retd.) Sarabjit Handa v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., New Delhi, 1993 CPC 549 Hr.—Cause of action arose in 1989 whereas complaint was filed in 1993 - Complaint barred by limitation - Shiv Rice

and General Mills (M/s.) v. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1996(1) CPC 412 Hr.—Cause of action arose in 1990 - Complaint filed in 1998 - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2003(2) CPC 584

N.C. —Cause of action arose in 1991 - Complaint filed in 2000 dismissed as time barred - 2005(1) CPC 313 N.C.—Cause of action arose in 1991 whereas complaint was filed in 1998 - Complaint is hopelessly time barred and

hence dismissed - 2005(2) CPC 319 N.C. —Cause of action arose in 1992 complaint filed within 3 years held to be within time when Section 24-A was not

applicable - 1999(2) CPC 465 S.C. —Cause of action arose in 1994 - Complaint filed in 2001 is barred by time - Approaching to bank authorities during

this period cannot extend the time - 2002(1) CPC 565 N.C. —Cause of action arose in 1995 - Insurance claim filed in 1995 after repeated request for settlement - Claim cannot

be rejected on limitation as there was continuity in cause of action - Raj Enterprises (M/s.) v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 591 U.P.

--Cause of action arose in 1997 – Complaint filed in 2005 – Complaint rightly dismissed as barred by limitation – Merely writing a letter by Panchayat does not create fresh cause of action - 2009(1) CPC 96 N.C.

--Cause of action arose in 1998 when possession was delivered – Complaint filed in 2002 without explaining delay is barred by limitation - 2009(2) CPC 390 N.C.

--Cause of action arose in 2002 – Complaint filed in 2007 after 15 years – Complaint dismissed as hopelessly time barred- Mere correspondence cannot extend period of limitation - 2010(2) CPC 303 Hr.

—Cause of action arose in January-April, 1992 - Complaint filed in October, 1994 dismissed as time barred - 2002(2) CPC 94 N.C

—Cause of action arose on 13-11-91 - Complaint filed on 18-2-94 - Claim be barred by time - 2002(1) CPC 281 N.C.

—Cause of action arose on 16.6.1988 - Complaint filed on 10.8.1992 is barred by time - Gopi Matching Centre (M/s.) v. M/s. Upkar Transport Company, 1995(2) CPC 393 Hr.

—Cause of action arose on 23.1.97 - Complaint filed on 21.7.99 without giving reason for delay - Complaint rightly dismissed as barred by limitation - Lakhbir Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2002(2) CPC 543 Pb.

—Cause of action arose on 23.10.2000 - Appeal filed on 4.9.2003 dismissed as time barred - Dr. A.P. Mittal v. M/s. Anukampa Computers Private Limited, 2005(1) CPC 307 Chd.

—Cause of action arose on 25.5.1991 - Complaint filed on 7.6.1995 is clearly barred by limitation - S.Roshan v. Saigal Associates, 2004(2) CPC 193 Delhi

13

--Cause of action arose on 25.9.1991 when truck met with an accident - Complaint filed in October 1999 is barred by limitation - 2005(1) CPC 427 N.C.

--Cause of action arose on 6.5.1996 whereas complaint was filed on 15.3.1999 – No sufficient reason for delay given – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2010(2) CPC 475 N.C.

--Cause of action arose on 7.6.1994 – Complaint filed on 5.5.1997 – No satisfactory reason given for delay – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2009(2) CPC 1 S.C.

--Cause of action can be stretched when first notice issued on 6.3.2000 – Complaint filed in 2006 – Making of any subsequent representation cannot extend the period of limitation - 2009(2) CPC 544 N.C.

—Cause of action had accrued before Amendment Act, 1993 - Complaint filed within 3 years from date of cause of action not barred by time - Sipani Automobiles Ltd. (M/s.) v. Kewal Krishan Duggal, 1998(2) CPC 130 Hr.

—Cause of action in continuity - Complaint not barred by time - Delhi Development Authority v. Mohan Singh, 2005(1) CPC 628 Delhi

—Cause of action regarding non supply of electricity arose in 1987 - Complaint filed in 1991 is beyond limitation - 2002(1) CPC 374 N.C.

—Cause of action relating to forged signature on cheque arose in 1994 - Compliant filed in 1998 is hopelessly time barred - 2007(1) CPC 500 N.C.

—Cause of action started on 9.10.2002 - Complaint filed within two years - Not barred by limitation - L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. Jagrut Nagrik, 2006(1) CPC 89 Guj.

—Cause of action would arise when a vehicle had been entrusted for repairs and not from the date of notice for compensation - 1996(1) CPC 89 N.C.

—Cause of action would start not from original agreement but from the latest agreement qua same transaction - 1996(1) CPC 657 N.C.

—Cheque dishonored on 21-7-1996 - Complaint filed on 7-7- 1998 - Liable to be dismissed as time barred - Gurdev Singh v. Punjab National Bank, 2000(2) CPC 64 Pb.

--Cheque presented on 17.4.1997 for encashment – Final denial for encashment given on 20.2.1999 by Bank Manager – Cause of action arose on 20.2.1999 – Complaint not barred by limitation - 2009(2) CPC 668 S.C.

—Civil suit withdrawn without any justification - Benefit of time spent in civil litigation cannot be given u/s 14 of Limitation Act - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Devi, 2008(1) CPC 108 Hr.

—Claim filed within 2 years under C.P. Act - Limitation of 12 months given in policy cannot override - Sec. 24-A of the Act - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri Jagmohan Lal Gupta, 1999(1) CPC 631 H.P.

—Claim filed within one year from date of repudiation - Not barred by law of limitation - New India Assurance Company v. Master Ajit Pal Singh, 2001(1) CPC 5 U.P.

--Claim filed within prescribed period of 3 months – Repudiation of claim as barred by limitation set aside – 2009(3) CPC 555 S.C.

—Claim for deficient service after three years of the date of cause of action is not maintainable - 1991 CPC 42 N.C.—Claim for non-delivery of consignment filed after 2 years - Claim dismissed as time barred - 1996(2) CPC 438

N.C. --Claim repudiated in 1988 but complaint filed in 1994 when limitation period was 3 years – Complaint dismissed as

time barred - 2009(1) CPC 274 S.C.—Claim was repudiated in 1989 - Complaint filed in 1997 dismissed as time barred - Mere correspondence between

the parties cannot extend the time - Sehgal Knitwears (M/s) v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 460 Pb.

--Compensation on the ground of hiring of service not to paid after 3 years - 1991 CPC 42 N.C. —Complainant came to know about the deficiency in service in 1988 - Complaint filed in 1990 - Complaint is

within time - Smt. K. Saralamma v. Bangalore Development Authority, 1991 CPC 663 Kar. —Complainant filed within two years from cause of action - Complaint held to be within time - Mohmmad Ubaid

Siddiqui v. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Upadhaya, 2000(1) CPC 347 U.P. —Complainant making claim efforts for settlement of claim of loss occurred in 1993, filed in 1998 not barred as it

was repudiated in 1998 - Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999(1) CPC 140 Pb.—Complainant was negligent in getting the copy of order in time - Condonation of delay declined - Rajasthan

Housing Board v. Ran Kaushal Singh, 2008(3) CPC 308 N.C. —Complaint about allotment of plot not maintainable after six years of cause of action - 1991 CPC 571 Pb.—Complaint about defect in power Tiller filed within 2 years from last reminder to dealer - Complaint not barred by

time - 1999(2) CPC 518 N.C.

14

—Complaint about escalated price of a house, not maintainable after expiry of 3 years after the delivery of possession - Sri A.V. Narayan v. The Commissioner, 1991 CPC 185 Kar.

—Complaint about non issue of debenture hopelessly time barred - Complaint not entertainable- Industrial Credit and Investment Corp. of India Ltd. v. Shri Tej Pal, 1998(2) CPC 246 Hr.

—Complaint about rendering deficient service filed ten years after cause of action without just call - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2006(2) CPC 684 N.C.

—Complaint against doctor filed with the delay of 7 years - Petition dismissed as time barred - Rajesh Kumar v. Dr. D.P. Bakshi, 2001(2) CPC 262 N.C.

—Complaint against doctor for failure of eyes operation filed in 1995 whereas operation was carried in 1992 - Complaint from date of failure of operation is within time - Dr. Shyamkumar v. Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya, 2002(1) CPC 569 Guj.

--Complaint against OP for non delivery of consignment in time – Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground that limitation is not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 – 2009(3) CPC 378 S.C.

—Complaint allegedly after two and half years of repudiation - Enteries in dispatch register pertaining to repudiation interpolated - Order set aside - 2006(1) CPC 421 N.C.

—Complaint alleging medical negligence in operation of stone filed beyond limitation - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Amarjit Singh v. Ludhiana Stone Clinic, 1999(2) CPC 407 Pb.

--Complaint barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed even without any plea of limitation in view of ruling of apex court – 2010(1) CPC 440 N.C.

—Complaint barred by time before District Forum - Such question of law can be raised first time in appeal - National Building Construction Corp. Ltd. v. Jindal Steel Industries, 2000(2) CPC 33 Pb.

--Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is a continuity of a cause of action – 2009(3) CPC 577 N.C.

—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is a continuing cause of action - 1998(1) CPC 86 Hr.

--Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - Gurbax Singh v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, 1998(2) CPC 507 Chd.

—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - H.M.T. Limited v. Ramesh Kumar, 2005(1) CPC 585 Chd.

—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 2000(1) CPC 215 M.P. —Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - P. Gopakrishna Nair

v. Sunrise Builders, 2004(1) CPC 220 Maha.—Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred where cause of action is continuing - Executive Engineer,

U.P.S.E.B. v. President, Nagar Panchayat, 2001(1) CPC 14 U.P.--Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground of limitation when cause of action is continuing - 2010(2) CPC 145 N.C.—Complaint cannot be held time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 1998(2) CPC 577 N.C. —Complaint cannot be treated as time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - James K. Daniel v. M/s.

Jayalakshmi Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2002(2) CPC 392 Ker. --Complaint could not be filed within limitation due to fault of counsel – Party cannot be made to suffer - Delay of

29 days condoned - - 2009(1) CPC 221 Pb.--Complaint delayed by 11 months and 10 days without filing any application for condonation of delay – Complaint

dismissed as time barred - 2009(1) CPC 84 N.C.--Complaint dismissed on ground of limitation even without notice to complainant – Order set aside – Case

remanded for fresh decision – 2009(3) CPC 99 S.C.—Complaint filed 2 years after accruing cause of action cannot be entertained - Sukhwinder Singh v. The Land

Acquisition Collector, 2001(1) CPC 85 Pb.—Complaint filed 3 and 7 months after repudiation of claim - Complaint being time hared not maintainable - New

India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawan Sharma, 2007(1) CPC 111 Hr.—Complaint filed 3 years after cause of action - Dismissed as time barred - 1996(2) CPC 63 N.C. —Complaint filed 3 years after cause of action, is not maintainable - Dr. R. N. Sethi v. Hardial Singh, 1997(2) CPC

449 Pb.—Complaint filed 32 months after real cause of action - Complaint dismissed as time barred - Savitri Verma (Dr.) v.

M/s Metro Motors, 2008(1) CPC 140 Chd.—Complaint filed 4 years after occurring of cause of action cannot be entertained - 2004(2) CPC 577 H.P. —Complaint filed 6 years after alleged deficiency in service - Dismissed as time barred - 1994(2) CPC 179 N.C.

15

—Complaint filed 6 years after cause of action, without explaining delay - Dismissed as time barred - Dinesh Singla v. M/s Silverline Technologies Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 56 Chd.

—Complaint filed after 2 years period from cause of action not maintainable - Mohinder Kaur v. Chairman/Managing Director, United India Insurance Co., 1997(1) CPC 203 Chd.

—Complaint filed after 3 years of refusal by bank to pay maturity amount - Complaint is barred by limitation - 1995(2) CPC 147 N.C.

—Complaint filed after 7/8 years from date of cause of action - Rightly dismissed as barred by time - 2006(2) CPC 225 NC

--Complaint filed after a lapse of Eleven years from the cause of action not maintainable - 1991 CPC 124 N.C. —Complaint filed after delay of 5 years from date of cause of action - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2001(2)

CPC 69 N.C.—Complaint filed after delay of one decade - Complaint liable to be dismissed on point of limitation - 2000(1) CPC

244 S.C.—Complaint filed after expiry of 2 years from date of cause of action - Compliant dismissed as time barred - Shanti

Dal Mills (M/s.) v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2007(1) CPC 285 Hr.—Complaint filed after expiry of 3 years from purchase of defective machinery is not maintainable - 1996(1) CPC

651 N.C. —Complaint filed after expiry of limitation not entertainable - Maharia Enterprises v. Surja, 1997(1) CPC 512 Hr.—Complaint filed after expiry of limitation period from the cause of action - Held liable to be dismissed as time

barred - Gurdial Singh v. Eicher Tractor Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 520 Pb.—Complaint filed after four years - Cause of action not maintainable - 1994(2) CPC 416 N.C.—Complaint filed after four years and nine months of the cause of action held liable to be dismissed as time barred -

Estate Manager, Housing Board v. Major Sunil Anand, 1993 CPC 48 Hr.—Complaint filed after laps of 10 years from date of award of arbitrator - Complaint dismissed as award by

limitation - 2007(2) CPC 541 N.C. —Complaint filed against irregularities in purchase of plot - Mere correspondence cannot extend the limitation -

Complaint dismissed - Improvement Trust, Faridkot v. Bhupinder Kaur, 1999(2) CPC 74 Pb. --Complaint filed against OP within two years from the date of cause of action – OP cannot take the plea that

complaint filed after one year from the date of cause of action is beyond limitation – Complaint filed within two years is maintainable - 2009(1) CPC 41 N.C.

—Complaint filed before Amending Act 1993 - Period of limitation is 3 years - Shibu v. St. Joseph Hospital, 1995(2) CPC 579 Ker.

—Complaint filed before Amending Act, 1993 which introduced Sec. 24A of the Act – Limitation filed within 3 years of cause of action not barred by the limitation - 2010(3) CPC 373 N.C.

—Complaint filed before Amendment Act, 1993 - Period of two years limitation not applicable - V.P. Sharma v. Sikander Lal and Company, 2004(2) CPC 612 Delhi

—Complaint filed beyond 2 years is not entertainable in view of Section 24-A of the Act - Daya Sagar Sahu v. United Insurance Company, 1995(1) CPC 535 U.P.

—Complaint filed beyond 2 years of cause of action - Complaint dismissed as barred by time - K. Shankar Hegde (Mr.) v. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bombay, 1996(1) CPC 671 Kar.

—Complaint filed during continuance of cause of action not barred by time - 1999(2) CPC 119 N.C. —Complaint filed in 1996 - Alleged medical negligence committed in 1993 - Complaint dismissed as time barred -

K.G. Kumaran v. Dr. Santharam Shetty and Ors., 2003(2) CPC 360 N.C. —Complaint filed on 11.8.1995 – Limitation will start from 28.7.2005 – Continuing cause of action – Complaint well

within time - 2010(3) CPC 516 N.C.—Complaint filed on 24.7.2002 against cause of action arisen on 31.7.2000 - Appeal not barred by limitation -

Millennium School Bharatiya Academic Society v. Jagan Lal Badwani, 2004(2) CPC 343 C.G. --Complaint filed with delay of about 3 years – A letter from another authority directing to approach consumer

forum cannot extend the period of limitation – 2011(1) CPC 382 N.C.

--Complaint filed within 3 years before Amending Act, 1993 - Not barred by limitation - Jaspal Singh v. Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, 1996(1) CPC 298 Raj.

—Complaint filed within 3 years from a cause of action arising in May, 1989 - Complaint is within time - Piari Lal Madan v. Smt. Harcharan Kaur, 1995(2) CPC 654 Hr.

—Complaint filed within 3 years from cause of action having accrued before Amending Act, 1993 - Complaint not time barred - State Bank of India v. Narayan Das Mishra, 1998(2) CPC 132 M.P.

16

—Complaint filed within 3 years from date of cause of action before Amending Act, 1993 - Complaint not barred by limitation - N. G. Rajagopalan v. Branch Manager, M/s. I.T.C. Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 165 T.N.

—Complaint filed within limitation from date of “acknowledgement” - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - Ronak Chand v. M/s. E.C.P. Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 281 Hr.

—Complaint filed within limitation from date of knowledge of cause of action - Complaint is within limitation - 2006(1) CPC 240 N.C.

—Complaint filed within limitation from the date of cause of action - Complaint is maintainable - 1997(1) CPC 415 N.C.

—Complaint filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of cause of action - Not to be dismissed as barred by time - Mukunda Lal Ganguly v. Dr. Abhijit Ghosh, 1996(1) CPC 46 W.Bengal

—Complaint filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of mistake - Complaint not time barred - Apex Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank, 1995(1) CPC 583 T.N.

—Complaint filed within limitation starting from bouncing of second cheque - Complainant entitled to avail remedy under section 3 of the Act for refund of deposit for allotment - 2008(1) CPC 502 N.C.

—Complaint filed within one year from repudiation of claim - Complaint not time barred - Tek Chand v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 20 U.P.

—Complaint filed within prescribed period of 2 years from date of cause of action - Complaint not barred by time - Branch Manager, S.B.I. Kendrapada v. Krushna Chandra Das, 2001(1) CPC 150 Orissa

—Complaint filed within three years from cause of action prior to amendment of Section 24-A - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2002(1) CPC 644 N.C.

—Complaint filed within two years from cause of action - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2005(2) CPC 435 N.C.

—Complaint filed within two years from date of receipt of letter intimating loss of goods to consignor - Complaint not barred by limitation - 2007(1) CPC 555 S.C.

--Complaint for insurance claim filed after more than four years after cause of action - Cause of action does not continue till time of denial of claim - Complaint dismissed - 2003(2) CPC 275 N.C.

—Complaint highly time barred, not maintainable under the Consumer Act - 1992 CPC 84 N.C. —Complaint hopelessly time barred - A stale claim cannot be entertained - 993 CPC 204 N.C. —Complaint hopelessly time barred - Cannot be entertained under Consumer Protection Act - Sardari Lal Om

Parkash (M/s.) v. Punjab National Bank, 1995(1) CPC 359 Hr.—Complaint is not time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - Calcutta Construction Company v.

Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., 2003(2) CPC 430 Chd. —Complaint not barred by time when there is a continuity of cause of action - 2000(1) CPC 259 S.C. —Complaint not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 - Complaint dismissed as

time barred - 2005(2) CPC 321 N.C. —Complaint not filed within two years as prescribed under Rule 30 (1) of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 - Complaint

not maintainable - 1997(2) CPC 202 N.C.—Complaint not to be dismissed when filed within limitation from the date of cause of action - Pearl Exports and

Imports v. New Bank of India, 1995(1) CPC 476 Pb. —Complaint not to be non suited on the ground of laches if complaint is filed within limitation - Haryana State

Electricity Board v. Jawahar Lal Singla, 1993 CPC 755 Hr.—Complaint regarding defects in construction and development of cracks in walls filed after delay of ten years from

delivery of possession - Order of State Commission accepting complaint, set aside - 2008(2) CPC 240 N.C. —Complaint regarding lack of amenities to industrial shed filed in 1991 - Allotment was made in 1997 - Complaint

dismissed as time barred 2002(1) CPC 386 N.C. --Complaint regarding non providing of basic facilities as per letter of allotment made in 1992 – Complaint

filed in 1999 being hopelessly time barred is dismissed – 2010(1) CPC 200 N.C.—Complaint regarding non-delivery of possession of flat should be made within three years - 1991 CPC 391 (1)

N.C.

--Complaint was filed beyond a period of 3 years - Relief declined - 1995(1) CPC 170 N.C. —Complaint was filed beyond a period of 3 years before the Amending Act, 1993 - Held liable to be dismissed on

the ground of limitation - Savita Chhabra v. Bank of India, 1995(1) CPC 204 Chd.--Complaint within limitation from date of cause of action – Complaint not barred by limitation – 2010(1)

CPC 664 N.C.

17

—Complaint within limitation from date of discovery of T.V. defect - Complaint cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation - K.K. Prabhakaran v. P.M. Suresh, 2001(1) CPC 283 Ker.

—Complaint within limitation from the date of acknowledgement of claim cannot be dismissed as time barred from date of cause of action - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Saraswati Udyog, 1998(1) CPC 397 Hr.

--Complaints filed beyond period of two years held to be barred by limitations - 2009(1) CPC 225 N.C.--Complaints regarding payment on maturity filed beyond 3 years of cause of action – Plea of conformity of cause of

action repelled – Complaints filed beyond limitation not maintainable – 2011(1) CPC 650 N.C.—Concocted story narraed for condonation of delay of 278 days - Delay not to be condoned - 2007(2) CPC 128

N.C. —Condonation - Appeal time barred - No application with affidavit filed for condonation - Appeal dismissed as time

barred - M/s. Saree Centre, Sodhi Emporium v. Sarjit Kaur, 1991 CPC 538 Hr.—Condonation - State is not entitled to any concession in respect of condonation of delay, more than a private party

- Housing Board, Haryana v. Dr. S. L. Chaudhary, 1991 CPC 295 Hr.—Condonation of delay – Delay of 57 days in filing the appeal – When the court is satisfied that matter requires

compensation on merit – Delay in filing the appeal may be condoned - 2010(3) CPC 363 N.C.—Condonation of delay - Time consuming in consultation of documents is not a sufficient ground for condonation

of delay - Telecom District Engineer, Dharamshala v. M/s. S. Mehra Hotels, 1991 CPC 193 H.P. —Condonation of delay in absence of sufficient cause cannot be allowed - T. Kavita Reddy v. Urban Development

Authority, 2001(1) CPC 640 A.P.—Condonation of delay in appeal cannot be allowed when there is no application accompanied with an affidavit -

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hissar v. Shri Rattan Singh, 1991 CPC 661 Hr.—Condonation on the ground of administrative and inter departmental lapses is not permissible - Estate Officer,

H.U.D.A., Gurgaon v. Mohinder Partap, 1993 CPC 554 Hr.--Construction agreement executed on 29.3.1993 – Construction completed in March, 1995 – Agreement and letter

show that payment was construction-linked – Complaint filed on 15.10.1998 was within limitation - 2009(1) CPC 163 N.C.

—Continuity - A complaint cannot be held as time barred where cause of action is still continuing - Housing and Development Board, U.P., Lucknow v. Mr. Hari Raj Swaroop Bhatnagar, 2001(1) CPC 235 U.P.

--Continuity in cause of action proved – Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2010(2) CPC 702 N.C.—Continuity of cause of action proved - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - S.L. Khera v. Chief

Administrator, Punjab Urban Dev. Authority, 2003(2) CPC 217 Chd. —Continuity of cause of action proved in the case - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2002(2) CPC

426 N.C.—Correspondence about insurance claim went on even after filing of complaint - Claim cannot be rejected as being

“Stale” - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. B.N. Sahay, 1996(1) CPC 254 Bihar —Courts are expected not to legalise injustice on technical grounds - Delay of 18 days condoned on sufficient

reasons - Jyoti Prakash Mondal v. Bhubneshwar Saha, 1994(1) CPC 490 W.Bengal—Date of pronouncement of order is the date of knowledge of order wherefrom time starts to run - Housing Board

Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association, Kurukshetra, 1993 CPC 162 Hr.--Delay – Sufficient reasons – Delay of 206 days in filing of appeal – Reasons given for delay not satisfactorily

explained – Dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation justified – 2011(1) CPC 82 N.C.—Delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of ignorance of law - 1991 CPC 29 Hr. —Delay cannot be condoned unless a sufficient reason for delay is established - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.

Dr. Vasudha Vasanti Dhagamwar, 2000(2) CPC 253 Delhi

--Delay cannot be condoned where not satisfactory explanation is given - 1996(2) CPC 489 N.C. —Delay due to administrative procedure, without explanation, cannot be condoned - Sub Divisional Officer v. Boota

Singh, 2004(2) CPC 196 Pb.—Delay due to strike of employees - Sufficient cause for delay established - Praful Kumar Jain v. Dr. Alok Kumar

Singh, 1994(2) CPC 271 Bihar —Delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned on the basis of procedural delay - Delhi Development Authority v. I.J.

Madan, 2001(1) CPC 534 Delhi —Delay in filing of appeal due to non-supply of copy of order to appellant - Delay should be condoned -

International Housing Development Corp. Ltd. v. Suniti Pal, 1998(1) CPC 145 Pb. —Delay more than one year in filing revision without satisfactory explanation - Revision dismissed as time barred

rightly - 2004(1) CPC 6 N.C.

18

—Delay of 1128 days due to frivolous civil litigation - Reason not sufficient to condone the delay - 2003(2) CPC 348 N.C.

—Delay of 115 days in filing appeal due to misplacement of necessary documents - Delay condoned - Milkfed through its Managing Director v. Kuldip Singh Walia, 2005(1) CPC 408 Chd.

—Delay of 127 days - Reason for delay too general - Delay not satisfactorily explained, not condoned - 2008(3) CPC 47 N.C.

—Delay of 131 days in filing revision by LIC without sufficient reasons for delay - Revision dismissed as time barred - 2008(2) CPC 271 N.C.

--Delay of 138 days in filing appeal – No sufficient cause – Condonation of delay not allowed – 2011(1) CPC 686 N.C.

—Delay of 158 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay in absence of sufficient reasons declined - R.K. Trika v. Dr. Karamjeet Singh, 2006(2) CPC 729 Hr.

—Delay of 1680 days in filing revision petition - Delay can not be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause - 2007(1) CPC 406 N.C.

--Delay of 172 days in filing revision petition – Mere plea of procedural delay is not sufficient to condone a long delay – 2010(1) CPC 534 N.C.

--Delay of 182 days in filing of appeal – No satisfactory reason for condonation of delay given – Dismissal of appeal on round of limitation justified - 2010(2) CPC 239 N.C.

—Delay of 2 months in filing appeal due to official procedure - Reason for condonation of delay not sufficient - Union of India v. Vijay Kumar Singhal, 2000(1) CPC 73 Pb.

--Delay of 2-½ years in filing complaint – Illiteracy is not sufficient ground to condone delay - 2009(2) CPC 568 U.P.

--Delay of 220 days in filing revision without giving any application for condonation – Revision dismissed as time barred - 2009(1) CPC 72 N.C.

—Delay of 29 days in filing revision - Sufficient reason given for delay - Delay condoned - 2004(2) CPC 704 S.C. —Delay of 3 months in delivery of insured letter - Deficiency in service proved - It is wrong to say that complaint

cannot be filed after expiry of 3 months of cause of action - Union of India v. Shri Shayam Lal, 1998(2) CPC 661 H.P.

--Delay of 30 days in filing appeal without any satisfactory explanation - Condonation disallowed - Ashok Kumar Kapoor v. M/s. Vidhata Enterprises, 1991 CPC 701 Pb.

—Delay of 36 days in filing of appeal - Plea of illness not supported by evidence - Delay cannot be condoned - Vandana Bansal (Mrs.) v. M/s Janta Travels, 2002(2) CPC 260 Chd.

—Delay of 378 days - Complainant’s contention that they spent lot of time in consultation and seeking instruction - No sufficient and good reason to condone the delay - 2008(2) CPC 336 N.C.

—Delay of 4 years from date of cause of action - Complaint dismissed as time barred - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Uptron India Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 508 Hr.

—Delay of 4 years in filing claim petition after lodgement of claim with manufacturer - No acknowledgment of liability proved - Petition dismissed as time barred - 2002(1) CPC 542 S.C.

—Delay of 41 days in filing appeal - No sufficient reason given for delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Accounts Officer, Office of the Telecom District Manager v. Sri Swamy Anantha Prakash, 2000(1) CPC 441 A.P.

—Delay of 510 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay in absence of sufficient reason declined - 2004(1) CPC 17 N.C.

--Delay of 588 days in filing appeal not satisfactorily explained – Condonation of delay denied - 2009(1) CPC 16 N.C.

—Delay of 61 days in filing appeal - Misplacement of papers of case not sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Dr. D. Sujana, 2000(1) CPC 213 A.P.

--Delay of 612 days in filing revision petition – Procedural delay cannot be made a ground for condonation particularly when HUDA has a legal cell to take a prompt action in dealing with the cases of allotment – 2010(1) CPC 633 N.C.

--Delay of 62 days mentioned in office order but in the main order, it was reported as barred by 240 days without explanation – Order set aside – Case remanded - 2009(1) CPC 581 S.C.

—Delay of 63 days - Date wise details regarding processing of the case is not given - Delay cannot be condoned - 2008(3) CPC 147 N.C.

—Delay of 65 days in filing petition due to time spent at level of various Govt. Departments - Reason not sufficient - Condonation of delay declined - 2006(1) CPC 61 N.C.

19

—Delay of 687 days in filing appeal - Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient reasons - Housing Board Haryana v. Roop Chand Panwar, 1999(2) CPC 249 Chd.

—Delay of 7 years in filing the complaint - Relief declined - 1994(2) CPC 189 N.C.--Delay of 72 days in filing revision petition not explained with satisfaction – Condonation of delay declined -

2009(1) CPC 695 N.C.—Delay of 75 days in filing an appeal - Delay due to departmental process is not a sufficient reason for condonation

of delay - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Kirpal Singh, 2006(1) CPC 62 Hr.—Delay of 79 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined - LIC Mutual Fund Rep. by its Chief Secretary

v. Ganti Narasimhamurthy, 2000(1) CPC 423 A.P.—Delay of 83 days in filing of appeal – Reason for delay was given that file was moving from table to table –

Reason not sufficient – Appeal dismissed as time barred - 2010(3) CPC 93 N.C.—Delay of 91 days in filing appeal - Mere legal opinion for delay is not a sufficient reason - Dakshin Haryana Bijli

Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Mohan Lal, 2008(2) CPC 143 Hr.--Delay of 91 days in filing revision – Contention that revision was delayed due to mistake of clerk not acceptable -

2009(1) CPC 63 N.C.—Delay of about 5 year in filing complaint without any explanation for delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred -

Jeet Kaur Bhatia (Smt.) v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, 2005(1) CPC 225 Chd.

--Delay of more than 2 months in filing appeal - Reason for delay was given as counsel failed to intimate receipt of copy - Reason not satisfactory - Appeal time barred - 2004(1) CPC 16 N.C.

—Delay of one decade in filing complaint against bank about account - Mere correspondence between parties cannot extend limitation - United Commercial Bank v. J. S. Preet, 1999(2) CPC 216 Pb.

—Department spent time in consulting the various offices - Delay of 84 days in filing of appeal - Delay cannot be condoned - Telephone District Manager, Ferozepur v. Shri Bimal Kumar Jain, 1993 CPC 45 Pb.

—Dismissal of complaint on limitation is not proper when there is a continuing cause of action - Sukhjit Singh Chandi v. M/s. Spice Telecom, 2005(1) CPC 261 Chd.

—Earlier application for condonation of delay dismissed in default - Second application for condonation not maintainable - 1992 CPC 242 N.C.

—Educational Services - OP refused to refund the fee despite repeated requests - Continuing cause of action - Complaint not time barred - 2008(3) CPC 94 AP

--Electricity – Supplementary bills – Regular bill towards final payment raised after eight years – Time limitation of three years is not applicable in raising supplementary demand - 2009(1) CPC 228 N.C.

—Electricity Board raised a demand a bill of Rs. 2,56,404 in year 2000 – Notice for recovery issued in 2008 – Time limit for recovery under law is 2 years – Recovery of arrears is barred by limitation - 2010(3) CPC 593 H.P.

—Enhancement of compensation cannot be allowed on a time barred appeal - Corporation Bank v. Smt. Nirmala Baliga, 1996(1) CPC 499 Ker.

—Even instrumentality of State is bound by law of limitation - No body is above law - Punjab Urban Development Authority v. Malkiat Singh Bala, 2001(1) CPC 559 Pb.

—Even when no objection against time barred complaint is taken in written statement it is the duty of Consumer Forum to consider objection of limitation by itself - 2008(2) CPC 61 Hr.

—Filing of Writ Petition, Appeals or S.L.P. do not operate to prevent the running of time - Complaint dismissed being barred by limitation - Dr. Indira Sanghi v. Karnataka Electricity Board, 1991 CPC 264 N.C.

—Fresh period of limitation would start from the date of acknowledgement of a liability - D.P. Hazra v. Indian Airlines, 1996(1) CPC 56 Delhi

--Grievance relating to allotment of plot arose in 1986 whereas complaint filed in 1992 – Explanation regarding lack of knowledge not convincing – Complaint dismissed as withdrawn – 2011(1) CPC 30 N.C.

—Handing over of copy of order to third person found to be an after though - Delay of 45 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned - Corporate Product Manager, M.R.F. Ltd. v. Mehar Singh, 2004(1) CPC 178 Pb.

--HUDA allotted plot two times occupied by others – Appeal filed with delay of 14 days without giving satisfactory reason for delay – Appeal dismissed on ground of limitation and also on merit – 2009(3) CPC 635 N.C.

—If no dilatory tactics are adopted by litigant, generally delay should be condoned - Rita Rani (Ms.) v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2005(1) CPC 438 Chd.

—Ignorance of law is no excuse for seeking condonation of delay - Unit Trust of India v. Saroj Goyal, 1994(1) CPC 637 Pb.

—Impleadment of Excise Department for refund of Excise Duty after 3 years of filing of complaint is illegal - 2002(2) CPC 451 N.C.

20

—In the absence of separate application with affidavit for condonation of delay - Appeal is to be dismissed as time barred - Manoj Sinha v. Lohia Machines Ltd., 1996(1) CPC 506 Bihar

--In the matter of deposit made in a financial institution cause of action would accrue only date of demand and not from date of last deposit - V.P. Davis v. Karuna Trust, Reptd. by Managing Partner, 2001(2) CPC 286 Ker.

—Incident giving rise to claim occurred on 22..2002 but claim was repudiated on 22.2.2007 wherefrom limitation period should have been computed – Complaint filed on .10.2009 held to be time barred - 2010(3) CPC 264 N.C.

--Insurance – Insured tobacco stock caught fire – Criminal proceedings against appellant dismissed in 1992 – Claim petition filed in 1997 – Petition barred by limitation which was 2 years u/s 24-A of the Act – 2009(3) CPC 1 S.C.

—Insurance claim can be repudiated if not filed within a period as stipulated in the Insurance Policy - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Brijendra Singh Sarna, 1998(1) CPC 111 U.P.

—Insurance claim filed after a long period of 30 years when CP Act was not in force- Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2010(3) CPC 274 N.C.

—Insurance claim filed beyond 12 months prescribed for claim under the policy - Complaint dismissed as barred by time - Darshan Kumar Puri v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 502 Hr.

—Insurance claim filed within 12 months as provided under the condition of insurance policy - Repudiation of claim by insurer unjustified - 2000(1) CPC 583 N.C.

—Insurance claim filed within limitation from date of acknowledgement - Claim held to be within time - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Charanjit Kaur, 2001(1) CPC 44 Pb.

—Insured died in 1990 complaint filed in 1999 - Complaint dismissed as time barred - Repudiation of claim upheld - Gurdeep Kaur v. Managing Director Pearls Green Forests Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 525 Pb.

—It is not correct that complaint against defective house should be filed within six months under the D.D.A. Act from the date of possession - 1994(1) CPC 394 N.C.

—Lapse of 3 years and more than 7 months in filing of complaint - Complaint dismissed as time barred - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Brig (Retd.) Karan Singh, 2008(2) CPC 20 Hr.

—Last date of limitation was holiday - Appeal filed on next following day is not barred by limitation - I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited v. Gurdial Singh, 2005(1) CPC 674 Pb.

—Latest letter demanding possession of HUDA plot is dt. 12.10.2002 in the sequence of events - Complaint filed within two years of latest letter is within limitation though allotment was made in 1985 - Raj Dulari Gupta v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2003(2) CPC 206 Chd.

—Law of limitation not expressly applicable to consumer proceeding - Its principles are applied in the interest of justice and equity - 1992 CPC 394 N.C.

Limitation – Complainant kept mum for six years in a case of fraudulent withdrawal from their accounts – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2010(3) CPC 245 N.C.

—Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under Consumer Act - Complaint filed after delay of 4 years and 4 months not maintainable - S. Kumar v. The Managing Director Air India, 1991 CPC 476 Delhi

—Limitation Act not applicable to Consumer Act - Time spent in remaining the complaint pending in National Commission cannot be excluded - C. P. Philip v. Pulimoottil Enterprises, 1991 CPC 405 Kerala

—Limitation cannot be condoned on the application of Counsel’s Clerk - 1991 CPC 525 N.C. —Limitation cannot be condoned without sufficient cause for delay is shown - Prem Wood v. New India Assurance

Co., 1999(2) CPC 382 U.P.

--Limitation cannot be extended by presentation of means of allotment of alternative plot - Narne Estates Private Ltd. v. Lt. Col. K.V. Gopal, 2003(2) CPC 661 A.P.

—Limitation does expire where cause of action is in continuity - Mahalakshmi Land and Finance Company (Private) Ltd. v. Ram Prakash Gupta, 1999(1) CPC 685 Delhi

--Limitation does not start from date of sale of machinery but from the date of repairs - 2010(2) CPC 126 N.C.—Limitation expired during summer vacation - Appeal not filed even on opening day - Condonation of delay

declined - Alka Gupta v. Improvement Trust, Batala, 2004(2) CPC 205 Pb.—Limitation for cause of action accrued before Amendment Act, 1993 is 3 years - Krishan Kapur v. M/s. Haryana

Emporium, 1999(1) CPC 309 Delhi —Limitation for compensation for damage to shipped vehicle is one year under Act, 1925 - Sec. 24-A of C.P. Act

not applicable - Complaint filed after one year dismissed as time barred - Mariamma Narendranathan v. Shipping Corporation of India, 1998(2) CPC 643 Kerala

—Limitation for complaint starts from date of repudiation of insurance claim - Neel Kamal Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 196 Maha.

--Limitation for filing a complaint starts from the date of cause of action - 2009(1) CPC 368 N.C.

21

—Limitation for filing an appeal against order of District Forum starts from the date of delivery of copy of order and not from its pronouncement - 1995(2) CPC 277 S.C.

—Limitation for filing an appeal would start from the date of communication of order passed by Distt. Forum - Raj Kumar v. Kala Vihar Co-Op. Group Housing Society, 1997(1) CPC 564 Delhi

—Limitation for filing complaint for insurance claim was 3 years before the Amending Act, 1993 i.e. 18.6.1993 - 1997(2) CPC 1 S.C.

—Limitation for lis expired in 1985 - Payment of share made seven years thereafter - Complaint is time barred - Pfizer Ltd. of Bombay v. Hansraj Singh Barak, 1993 CPC 815 Hr.

—Limitation for recovery of balance of electricity arrears cannot be limited to period of 3 years - Municipal Council, Gurdaspur v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2006(1) CPC 208 Pb.

—Limitation in insurance claim cases starts from the date of settlement or repudiation of claim - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Parkash Kaur, 1997(1) CPC 166 Pb.

—Limitation is 3 years if cause of action arose before 18.6.1993 - It is 2 years where cause of action arose after 18.6.1993 - State Bank of India v. Jamal Mohideen Pappa, 1998(2) CPC 697 T.N.

—Limitation is three years for specific performance of a contract - 1992 CPC 439 Delhi —Limitation of 2 years starts from the date when insurance claim is repudiated - 2000(1) CPC 88 Pb. —Limitation of one year given in policy cannot override the period of two years prescribed under C. P. Act for filing

a Complaint - 2005(2) CPC 20 N.C.

--Limitation of one year in Carriage of Goods by Sea Act overrides period of 2 years given in Consumer Protection Act for loss of shipped goods - Mariamma Narendranathan v. Shipping Corporation of India, 1999(2) CPC 282 Ker.

—Limitation once started from date of receipt of copy of order cannot be revived subsequently by taking its certified - 2003(1) CPC 618 N.C.

—Limitation period shortened by Amending Act - Reasonable time of 3 months allowed to the party to file complaint under the old law of limitation - Renu Saxena (Mrs.) v. S.P. Jakhanwal, 1994(2) CPC 350 Delhi

—Limitation prescribed under a Special Act overrides the provisions of Sec. 24-A of C.P. Act - Mariamma Narendranathan v. Shipping Corporation of India, 1998(2) CPC 643 Kerala

--Limitation runs from the date when a fraud is discovered by complainant - 1991 CPC 225 Delhi--Limitation starts from date of the cause of action - 2009(1) CPC443 N.C.—Limitation starts from the date of knowledge of order within the meaning of Section 15 of the Consumer Act -

Marikkar (Motors) Ltd. v. Mrs. Mary Poulose, 1991 CPC 408 —Limitation starts from the date of order and not from date of receipt of order - 1992 CPC 609 Hr.—Limitation starts from the date when cause of action is made known to complainant - 2003(2) CPC 395 Ker. —Limitation starts from the date when order is signed by member of Forum and date of signing is taken as date of

pronouncement - Anvarul Hak v. Avdesh Kumar, 2005(1) CPC 102 U.P. —Limitation starts from the date when the insurer denies or repudiates the claim - 1998(2) CPC 168 Pb. —Limitation starts running from the date of communication of order - 1998(2) CPC 89 Delhi —Limitation starts to run from the latest order of repudiation of claim - 1996(1) CPC 201 N.C. —Limitation would start from the date of acknowledgement of liability - T. Raghavachari v. M/s. Rudra

Constructions and Estates, 1996(1) CPC 316 T.N. —Limitation would start to run from the date when claim is denied by opposite party - Sub Divisional Officer,

H.S.E.B. v. Ramesh Kumar, 1997(1) CPC 278 Hr.—Litigant cannot be allowed gross abuse of process of C.P. Act to file baseless complaint - 2003(2) CPC 531 N.C. —Matter stayed by High Court - Cause of action would arise after vacation of stay - Krishna v. Delhi Development

Authority, 1995(1) CPC 401 Delhi —Mere deposit of balance of plot price does not give a fresh cause of action - Complaint being time barred from

date of auction is liable to be dismissed - State of Punjab through Administrator v. Kasturi Lal, 1998(2) CPC 436 Pb.

--Mere knowledge of surveyors report is not sufficient for raising the point of limitation - 1995(1) CPC 456 N.C. —Mere writing letter after dismissal of complaint for return of advocate fee does not give fresh cause of action-

Mohan Chouksey v. Rakesh Aggarwal, 2003(1) CPC 355 M.P.—Mere writing to telephone authorities for reconnection cannot keep the cause alive - 1994(1) CPC 140 N.C. —Mere writting of some letters to insurer cannot extend the period of limitation - Supermen’s Food Products (M/s.)

v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(1) CPC 167 Pb.—Misleading Court by deliberate attempt - Condonation of delay declined - Inland Road Transport v. M/s. Mehra

Brothers, 2004(2) CPC 53 Pb.

22

—No action can be taken on a time barred complaint petition - 1992 CPC 435 N.C. --No application for condonation of delay filed – Complaint filed much after expiry of two years –

Complaint rightly dismissed as time barred – 2010(1) CPC 257 N.C.—No concession can be given to a statutory body in condonation of delay - Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Kasturi

Lal Chadha, 1998(2) CPC 551 Pb.--No convincing, evidence produced to challenge a concurrent finding of Fora below who dismissed complaint as

time barred – Appeal dismissed - 2010(2) CPC 551 N.C.—No explanation given nor any affidavit filed to seek condonation of delay - Appeal dismissed as time barred -

Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Virender Pal Singh, 1991 CPC 102 Hr. —No limitation is prescribed under CP Act for filing application for execution of an order - Application after 30

days is maintainable - 2008(3) CPC 307 N.C. —No reason given for delay in filing appeal beyond 2 years - Dismissed as barred by time - Dinesh Kumar Sharma

v. Central Bank of India, through its Senior Branch Manager, 2002(2) CPC 528 Chd.—No satisfactory cause given to explain delay of more than 6 months - Appeal dismissed as time barred - New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Shimla Mandi Goods Transport Company (Regd.), 2004(1) CPC 382 Chd.--No satisfactory reason given for filing complaint after lapse of 6 years from the date of cause of action –

Complaint dismissed as time barred – 2010(1) CPC 685 N.C.—Objection against limitation not raised before Forum - Objection cannot be raised at appellate stage - Satish

Chandra Agarwal v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2005(2) CPC 244 Raj.--Official procedure and fault of advocate given as reason for delay of 236 days in filing revision – Reason

not satisfactory - Condonation of delay denied – 2010(1) CPC 150 N.C.--Operation of eye was performed in 1998 – Complaint filed in 2002 after four years – Application not filed for

condonation of delay – Complaint barred by time - 2010(2) CPC 416 Uttrakhand—Order not legally sustainable - Relief should not be denied on technical grounds of limitation - General Manager,

Telecom v. M/s Gurdarshan Singh Somal, 2000(1) CPC 100 Pb.—Original contract entered in 1966 and renewed in 1983 - Complaint regarding violation filed in 1994 is hopelessly

time barred - Surjit Aggarwal (Mrs.) v. M/s. Greater Delhi Planners (P) Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 395 Hr.—Particulars regarding arrival of consignment not given - Complaint not time barred in the absence of reckoning of

period of limitation - N. Dhandapani v. Korean Air, 2001(1) CPC 328 T.N. —Pendency of investigations in the bank cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in consumer proceedings -

Mrs. Agnes D. Mello v. The Executive Director, Canara Bank, 1993 CPC 411 Kar. —Period for filing a claim against municipality for committing negligence is 2 years under Act 82 of Limitation Act

- 1999(2) CPC 442 S.C.

--Period for filing complaint against insurance claim is three years - 1993 CPC 417 N.C. —Period of limitation beyond two years cannot be extended under Carriage by Air Act, 1972 read with S. 24-A of

C.P. Act - 2003(2) CPC 220 N.C. —Period of limitation for filing a complaint before 18.6.1993 was three years - Complaint held not barred by time -

2006(1) CPC 232 N.C.--Period of limitation which is shorter than that prescribed under statutory period of Limitation Act can be

prescribed by parties consenting for enforcement of an insurance contract – 2010(1) CPC 75 S.C.—Period of three years limitation would start when cause of action by denial of payment of bonds had accrued -

2007(1) CPC 599 N.C.—Period spent between filing of claim before consumer forum and disposal of matter by the highest court should be

excluded when civil court is approached for relief - 2006(2) CPC 664 S.C.—Petition for claim made after three years of occurance - Petition is manifestly barred by limitation - 1992 CPC 14

N.C.—Petitioner contended that complaint was time barred from the date of final settlement of amount in question -

Respondent/complainant receiving payment subsequently - Limitation would start from date of last payment - 2006(2) CPC 711 N.C.

—Plea of hiring of service for commercial purpose not raised in time barred complaint - Complaint dismissed - 2001(2) CPC 367 N.C.

--Plea of limitation not taken at earlier stage – The same cannot be permitted to be raised after 8 years for the first time – 2010(1) CPC 291 N.C.

23

—Plea of limitation not taken at earlier stage cannot be allowed to be raised at appellate stage - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Prasad Maurya, 1996(1) CPC 632 U.P.

—Plea of limitation was not taken before Distt. Forum and State Commission the 28.02.2002 was date of arising of cause of action, complaint filed on 31.01.2005 cannot be held to be barred by limitation u/s. 24A of C.P. Act - 2007(2) CPC 442 N.C.

—Point of limitation not raised at preliminary stage - Forum did not consider objection of limitation - May be considered at the time of final hearing - Order upheld - Green Channel Chit Funds and Finance Company v. Mrs. Papil Jain, 2004(1) CPC 50 Delhi

--Possession of plot delivered in 1993-96 – Complaint filed in 2000 – Complaint dismissed as barred by limitation – 2010(1) CPC 544 N.C.

—Presumption of death drawn on 22-1-1989 whereas complaint was filed in June, 1992 - Complaint barred by time even under old law - Branch Manager, L.I.C. v. Savitri Devi, 2000(2) CPC 709 U.P.

—Principles of Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings initiated under Consumer Protection Act - 1995(2) CPC 209 N.C.

—Principles of Limitation Act are fully applicable to consumer proceedings - 1993 CPC 626 Pb. —Principles of Limitation Act, are directly applicable to the Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC 134 Hr.--Proceedings being in continuity, question of complaint being time barred does not arise – 2010(1) CPC

254 N.C.--Proceedings not to be obstructed on the plea of limitation by a party, when such party is guilty of a malicious act -

Mike’s (P) Ltd. v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, 1995(1) CPC 465 N.C. —Provision of Consumer Act are governed by Limitation Act - Prabhat Bag Factory v. United India Insurance,

1991 CPC 430 Delhi —Provisions of amended Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act have prospective effect - United India

Insurance Company Ltd v. Asha Golden Transport Co., 1995(1) CPC 302 Guj.—Provisions of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act are not applicable to consumer proceedings for purpose of limitation -

2010(3) CPC 525 N.C.—Provisions of Consumer Protection Act override the provisions of a Special Act on law of limitation - 1996(1)

CPC 665 N.C. —Provisions of Sec. 14 of Limitation Act not applicable to consumer proceedings - Mohd. Shafeeq v. Pradeep

Kumar, 1999(2) CPC 639 U.P. —Provisions of Section 3 of Limitation Act are applicable to consumer proceedings - Cause of action arose in 1974

- Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly time barred- Kulvinder Kaur (Smt.) v. Punjab Housing Urban Development Authority, 1997(1) CPC 198 Chd.

—Question of bar of limitation does not arise where there is continuing cause of action - Tilak Raj v. Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, 1992 CPC 61 Hr.

—Question of exclusion of time spent in obtaining certified copy of order does not arise when application for copy was filed after statutory period of 30 days - West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Archana Chakraborty, 1996(2) CPC 131 West Bengal

—Railway department filed appeal with 457 day’s delay - Delay not explained Appeal dismissed as time barred - Union of India, Northern Railway v. M/s. Rohtak Khadi Ashram, 1998(1) CPC 448 Hr.

--Reason for condonation of delay of 1270 days not sufficient – Condonation of delay denied – 2009(3) CPC 105 N.C.

—Reason for delay was given death of counsel - Appeal could be filed through another counsel - Condonation of delay declined - Pearl International Tours and Travels Ltd. v. Smt. Kajol Dixit, 2004(1) CPC 163 Chd.

—Reason for delay was given that Advocate did not inform about fate of the case in time – Reason not satisfactory – Condonation of delay refused - 2010(3) CPC 35 N.C.

—Relief claimed after the expiry of limitation law cannot be granted to a claimant - 1994(2) CPC 190 N.C. —Rental bill raised towards 2002 when PBX Board removed for non-payment - Complaint filed in 2003 not barred

by limitation - B.S.N.L. v. Bengal Rowing Club, 2006(1) CPC 90 W.B. —Reopening of old and stale matters is against public policy when such matters have been finally settled - 1995(2)

CPC 209 N.C. —Repudiation of claim was ordered on 20-9-1990 - Complaint filed in October, 1992 - Complaint is not barred by

time - Refund of premium ordered - Technical Associates Industries Ltd. (M/s.) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996(2) CPC 118 Delhi

24

--Revision filed with a delay of 218 days – Allegedly counsel did not inform about decision in time – This is a usual excuse – Condonation of delay declined – 2010(1) CPC 204 N.C.

--Revision filed with delay of 275 days without giving sufficient reasons for delay – Condonation of delay declined – 2010(1) CPC 431 N.C.

--Revision filed with delay of 65 days against order passed in appeal which was barred by delay of 1167 days – Condonation on ground of official negligence declined – 2010(1) CPC 725 N.C.

--Revision petition filed with delay of 275 days in the absence of any convincing reasons for condonation of delay was liable to be dismissed – 2010(1) CPC 513 N.C.

—Rigours of Limitation Act and other civil laws are not applicable to CP Act - Parkash Lal Arora v. M/s Saichem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2007(2) CPC 329 H.P.

--Running of - Once time of limitation has started to run, it does not stop to run by writing a letter on the subject matter of dispute - Sunbeam Hotels (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. Union of India, 2000(2) CPC 632 Chd.

—Running of time - Running of limitation would not be stopped merely because a party was not present on the date of the order - Hindustan Computers Ltd. v. Amarjeet Paul, 1993 CPC 16 Pb.

—Sale Claim - Complainant seeking relief after ten years of cause of action - Complaint being time barred not entertainable - 1992 CPC 525 N.C.

—Settlement of an insurance claim should not take more than 3/4 months otherwise it would be a deficiency in service - 1997(2) CPC 485 N.C.

—Site remained undeveloped for long - It is a continuing cause of action - Complaint not to be dismissed as time barred - J.V.G. Finance Ltd. (M/s.) v. Raj Kumari, 1998(2) CPC 516 Pb.

—Spoil of academic carrier of student is no defence in a time barred complaint -Board of School Education v. Raj Kumar, 1995(2) CPC 388 Hr.

—Stale claims not to be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act - 1994(1) CPC 152 N.C. —Starting point - Limitation in cases of house construction would start from date of delivery of possession of flat-

Mohan Umarye v. M/s Madhavi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 222 Goa—State Commission dismissing appeal as barred by time in its discretionary power - Impugned order not open to

challenge - Subodh Kapoor v. Dr. R.R. Sharma, 1998(2) CPC 434 N.C. —State Commission is not a court but a quasi judicial authority - Limitation Act not applicable - M. Jayakara v.

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007(1) CPC 238 Kar.—State Commission not to entertain a belated appeal without condoning the delay - 1992 CPC 404 N.C. —State or a Corporation is on no different footing than a private litigant for the purpose of limitation - Estate

Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hissar v. Shri Rattan Singh, 1991 CPC 661 Hr—Subsequent showing continuity of time - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2008(1) CPC 681 N.C. —Sufficient cause - Lack of knowledge of order cannot be pleaded when the same is passed in the presence of the

counsel - 1994(2) CPC 58 Pb. —Sufficient cause - The fact that appellant is a big organisation is no ground for condonation of delay - Delhi Vidut

Board v. Gopi Ram, 2001(1) CPC 650 Delhi —Sufficient cause of delay was made out in filing the appeal - Condonation of delay allowed - Vipul Motors Pvt.

Ltd. v. Nirmal Bahree, 1991 CPC 511 Hr.—Surrender – Refund after making 10% deduction – Petitioner changed his mind and prayed for retaining plot –

Request disallowed – Complaint filed for restoration after three years is time barred - 2010(3) CPC 418 N.C.—Technical plea of limitation not raised before District Forum - Cannot be raised before appellate authority -

General Manager, Eastern Railways v. Smt. Malti Gupta, 2000(1) CPC 674 M.P. —Terms mentioned in Insurance policy for filing claim within 60 days does not override the limitation of two years

under the Act - Sikri Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co., 1997(2) CPC 638 Pb.

--Though Limitation Act is not applicable to C. P. Act - It is principles are applicable to it - 1995(2) CPC 82 N.C.--Time consumed in consumer proceedings initiated at wrong place – Complaint allowed to be filed before

appropriate Forum – Benefits of time consumed in wrong proceedings should be given to petitioner – 2010(1) CPC 273 N.C.

—Time expire in 1990 - Subsequent notice issued in 1996 cannot make the limitation re-run - Complaint barred by time - 2003(2) CPC 63 N.C.

—Time of limitation starts from the date when the patient feels aggrieved - 2004(2) CPC 646 N.C. —Time spent in civil litigation cannot be excluded for computation of period in filing a complaint - 1996(1) CPC 17

N.C.

25

—Time spent in consumer proceeding - Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act allowed as complaint was not entertainable - Dhandha Lal Verma v. Sanjay Agarwal, 2004(1) CPC 124 M.P.

—Time spent in consumer proceedings - Benefit should be given under Section 14 of Limitation in filing a civil suit - Ashok Leyland Finance Company Ltd. v. Gokran Singh Badauriya, 2003(2) CPC 141 M.P.

—Time spent in consumer proceedings - Benefit u/s. 14 of limitation for approaching civil court, should be given - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Brijendra Singh, 2001(2) CPC 87 M.P.

—Time spent in consumer proceedings should be excluded for seeking relief from a Civil Court - 1995(2) CPC 2 S.C.

--Time spent in consumer proceedings was allowed to be excluded by availing section 14 of the Limitation Act for seeking relief from Civil Court – 2011(1) CPC 580 S.C.

—Time spent in consumer proceedings where complaint was wrongly filed - Benefit of time spent in such proceedings to be given to complainant - 2008(2) CPC 15 N.C.

—Time spent in Court having no jurisdiction should be excluded in view of section 14 of Limitation Act - 2008(3) CPC 268 N.C.

—Time spent in earlier proceedings should be excluded for the purpose of limitation - 2008(2) CPC 703 N.C.—Time spent in High Court which directed to seek remedy to appropriate forum - Time spent to be high Court

should be excluded - Delay condoned - Ram Saroop v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2008(3) CPC 387 N.C. —Time spent in legal consultation - Not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay - P.S.E.B. v. Jagdish Lal

Malhan, 2004(2) CPC 126 Pb.—Time spent in Official correspondence is not valid reason for condonation of delay - Chhattisgarh State

Electricity Board Appellant v. Dhan Singh, 2005(1) CPC 373 Chhattisgarh —Time spent in review, cannot be excluded - Union of India etc. v. M/s. Nadu Shah Kapoor and Sons, 1993 CPC

471 Pb. —Time spent in writ petition - Petitioner directed to approach appropriate Forum - Benefit of time spent in High

Court should be given to complainant - Sri Arun Roy v. Zonal Manager, U.C.O. Bank, 1998(2) CPC 21 W. Bengal

--Time starts running from the date when order of Fora is communicated to the parties - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, 1999(2) CPC 80 Pb.

—Time will start to run not from date of order but from date of communication of order - Vishnath Keserwani v. Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking through its Executive Engineer, 2000(2) CPC 276 U.P.

—Time would start not from date of occurrence of loss but from date of repudiation of insurance claim - 1997(2) CPC 210 N.C.

—Time would start to run from the date of refusal of settlement of insurance claim - 1996(2) CPC 91 N.C. —Time would start to run from the date of repudiation of liability by opposite party - 1996(2) CPC 322 N.C. —Time would to run from the date when deficiency in service is noticed - Aruna Singla v. Onida Magnetics Ltd.,

1998(1) CPC 529 Pb. —Tractor purchased in 1989 - Complaint alleging defect therein filed in 1992 - Complaint dismissed being barred

by limitation- Laxmi Narain v. M/s. British Motor Car Co. Ltd., 1996(1) CPC 607 Hr. —Truck alleged to be defective was purchased in 1986 - Complaint filed in 1991 - Claim is time barred - Repair of

wear and tear in 1989 does not give fresh cause of action - 1993 CPC 710 N.C. —Truck alleged to be defective was purchased in 1990 - Complaint filed in 1993 is to be dismissed on ground of

limitation - Kesar Singh Gandhi and Sons v. Simpson and Company Ltd., 1995(2) CPC 340 J.&K.—Vehicle in question hypothicated with bank which sold it for recovery of loan amount - Complainant has no locus

standi to file complaint - 2005(1) CPC 273 N.C. —Vehicle was purchased on 7.2.1994 - Deficiency reported by registered post on 13.8.1997 - Complaint filed on

10.9.1997 is within limitation - Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (M/s.) v. Dr. Umapati Upadyay, 2004(2) CPC 598 U.P. —Vehicles purchased in 1979 and 1991 much before the Act came into force - Claim for manufacturing defect is

highly belated, cannot be accepted - 1992 CPC 40 N.C. —When cause of action is in continuity, complaint is not barred by limitation - 2005(2) CPC 162 N.C. —When limitation is extended in view of subsequent events - Complaint cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation

- 2008(1) CPC 390 N.C. —When there is continuing cause of action petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation - 1996(1) CPC

205 N.C. —When there is continuity in cause of action - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - R. Choodamani v. J.

Hemalatha, 2007(2) CPC 443 T.N.

26

--When there is recurring cause of action limitation starts from date of knowledge of latest cause - Rajasthan Housing Board v. Bhagya Ram, 2004(2) CPC 16 Raj.

--Where there is continuity of cause of action - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - Brij Mohan Gupta v. Neeraj Gupta, 2005(2) CPC 297 Chd.

—Wrong advice by counsel - Not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad v. Aninash Gupta, 1999(1) CPC 529 U.P.

—Wrong advice of lawyer is no ground for condonation of delay - Karnail Singh v. Sri Dashmesh Academy, 2005(1) CPC 486 Pb.

--Wrong legal notice and administrative reasons are not sufficient to condone delay of 246 days in filing appeal – However, delay is condoned to do justice to the appellant victim of wrong decision - 2009(1) CPC500 N.C.

Limitation extension - Period of limitation of two years can be extended with reference to Section 24-A of the C.P. Act - 2003(1) CPC 31 N.C.

Limitation for claim - A clause in policy prescribing a period of 3 months from disclaimer held to be legally valid and not in violation of Section 28 of Contract Act - 2001(1) CPC 130 N.C.

—A claim generally should be settled within 3 months of cause of action - Nishikon Enterprises (M/s.) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004(2) CPC 262 Uttaranchal

Limitation for revision - No period is prescribed under the Act - However revision should be filed within 90 days - 2003(2) CPC 80 N.C.

—Though no period is prescribed under the Act a revision should be filed within a period of 90 days - 2002(2) CPC 430 N.C.

Limitation for settlement - A period of 6 months is reasonable for settlement of claim after incident - 1997(2) CPC 386 N.C.

Limitation period – Complaint filed within two years – It cannot be pleaded that complaint should be filed within 1 year from cause of action in view of section 24A of the Act - 2009(1) CPC 41 N.C.

Limitation starting - Cause of action arises from the date of issuance of electric bill when period of limitation starts to run - S.D.O., Punjab State Electric Board v. Shamsher Singh, 1999(1) CPC 253 Pb.

Long distance - Application for copy of order given after 30 days of the order - Condonation of delay not granted on ground of long distance - 2003(2) CPC 81 N.C.

Maturity payment - Complaints regarding payment on maturity filed beyond 3 years of cause of action – Plea of conformity of cause of action repelled – Complaints filed beyond limitation not maintainable – 2011(1) CPC 650 N.C.

Misplacement of order - Delay of 146 days in filing of appeal - Misplacement of certified copy of order is no ground to condone delay - 2005(1) CPC 73 Chd.

Mistake of clerk - Delay of 91 days in filing revision – Contention that revision was delayed due to mistake of clerk not acceptable – 2009(1) CPC 63 N.C.

Mistaken advice - Wrong advice by counsel - Not a sufficient reason to condonation of delay - Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad v. Aninash Gupta, 1999(1) CPC 529 U.P.

Non receipt of order – Delay of 588 days in appeal – Mere contention of non receipt of order not sufficient for condonation of delay – 2009(1) CPC 16 N.C.

Nullity - An order granting relief to complainant for non- prosecution of case by respondent is not nullity - Appeal against order is governed by law of limitation - 1998(2) CPC 434 N.C.

Official’s fault - Delay of 77 days in filing appeal - Time spent in official consultation not sufficient ground for condonation - Punjab School Education Board, Mohali v. Harpal Singh, 2003(1) CPC 147 Pb.

Official’s negligence - Revision filed with delay of 65 days against order passed in appeal which was barred by delay of 1167 days – Condonation on ground of official negligence declined – 2010(1) CPC 725 N.C.

Official procedure – Delay of 243 days in filing of revision petition – Procedural delay cannot be taken as a valid reason for condonation of delay - 2010(2) CPC 30 N.C.

--Delay in filing of appeal due to official process - No sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Each day’s delay must be explained - 2001(2) CPC 245 Pb.

--Procedure delaying filing of appeal cannot be made a ground for condonation of delay - 2010(3) CPC 93 N.C.

27

--Appeal filed with delay of 470 days without sufficient cause – Official process as cause of delay not convincing – Appeal dismissed as barred by time - 2010(3) CPC 502 N.C.

--Official procedure as cause of delay was not sufficient reason for condonation of delay unless principle of “each day’s delay” to be explained is followed – Vague plea not acceptable – 2011(1) CPC 187 N.C.

--Order of Forum dated 29.10.2001 was complied with on 17.1.2003 – Delay covered by official procedure and not due to any bad intention – Order of imposing penalty by Forum quashed - 2010(2) CPC 345 Pb.

Penalty for false statement - Appellant making false statement on point of limitation - Directed to pay penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 for his faults - 2006(2) CPC 100 N.C.

Practice – Period of limitation of one year under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is not applicable to CP Act which prescribes 2 years as period of limitation u/s 24-A - 2009(3) CPC 378 S.C.

Preliminary Objection - Point of limitation not raised at preliminary stage - Forum did not consider objection of limitation - May be considered at the time of final hearing - Order upheld - 2004(1) CPC 50 Delhi

Prosecution —Offence committed under section 340 of CRPC for filing false affidavit is not barred by final decision of the matter in dispute nor barred by law of limitation - Gurpreet Singh v. Phaya Nath Misra, 2006(1) CPC 734 Pb.

Procedural delay - Delay of 172 days in filing revision petition – Mere plea of procedural delay is not sufficient to condone a long delay – 2010(1) CPC 534 N.C.

--Procedural delay is not a sufficient reason for condoning delay of 105 days – 2010(1) CPC 385 N.C.

Prosecution —Offence committed under section 340 of CRPC for filing false affidavit is not barred by final decision of the matter in dispute nor barred by law of limitation - Gurpreet Singh v. Phaya Nath Misra, 2006(1) CPC 734 Pb.

Reasonable cause - Applicant remained in judicial custody but his wife and daughter were appearing in the case - Reason for condoning delay of 357 days is not sufficient - 2003(2) CPC 464 Pb.

--Delay of 386 days in filing appeal – Reason for delay was stated due to fault of lower rank officers – Cause for delay is not sufficient and day-to-day delay must be explained. - 2010(3) CPC 60 N.C.

—Delay of 34 days - Delay caused by procedure of Legal Cell is no ground for condonation - 2003(1) CPC 149 Pb.—Delay of 36 days in filing of appeal - Plea of illness not supported by evidence - Delay cannot be condoned -

2002(2) CPC 260 Chd.

Reasonable period - Concept of reasonable period may be adopted when no time limit is prescribed under relevant law - 2008(1) CPC 381 N.C.

Reason for delay - Condonation of delay of 124 days sought on vague grounds – Delay cannot be condoned – 2010(1) CPC 623 U.P.

--Appeal filed with delay of 348 days – To say that papers of file were misplaced by her counsel is not a convincing reason – Appeal rightly dismissed as time barred – Order upheld – 2011(1) CPC 224 N.C.

Repeated delay – Revision filed with delay of 65 days against order passed in appeal which was barred by delay of 1167 days – Condonation on ground of official negligence declined – 2010(1) CPC 725 N.C.

Res judicata — Earlier complaint dismissed in default - Second complaint on same cause of action, even within limitation, not maintainable - Sadhu Singh v. AAR BEE Traders, 1996(2) CPC 634 Hr.

Revival of limitation - Time of limitation expired - Subsequent writing a letter on the subject does not constitutes an acknowledgement - Sunbeam Hotels (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. Union of India, 2000(2) CPC 632 Chd.

Review - Cause of delay in filing of review application due to wrong advice - Ground held not sufficient - Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Smt. Kiran Singla, 2003(1) CPC 557 Pb.

Satisfactory reason - Delay of 72 days in filing revision petition not explained with satisfaction – Condonation of delay declined – 2009(1) CPC 695 N.C.

--Prayer for condonation of delay of 417 days due to pendency of review petition - Delay cannot be condoned in the absence of satisfactory explanation - 2006(2) CPC 284 N.C.

Shifting of office - Shifting of office no reason to condone delay in filing appeal - 2004(1) CPC 177 Pb.

Substantial justice - Delay cannot be condoned where applicant has committed a gross negligence in prosecution of his case - Substantial justice to both parties should be aim of the court - 2006(2) CPC 607 H.P.

Sufficient cause - Appellant failed to explain delay of 64 days - No sufficient reason for delay was given - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Anju v. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2006(1) CPC 666 Hr.

28

--Cause of action arose on 6.5.1996 whereas complaint was filed on 15.3.1999 – No sufficient reason for delay given – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2010(2) CPC 475 N.C.

--Appeal with delay of 1553 days dismissed by State Commission as no reasonable cause given by appellant for condonation of delay – Presence of petitioner/OP was recorded in order of District Forum – Order of State Commission upheld – 2011(1) CPC 385 N.C.

--Delay of 83 days in filing of appeal – Reason for delay was given that file was moving from table to table – Reason not sufficient – Appeal dismissed as time barred - 2010(3) CPC 93 N.C.

--Delay of 201 days in filing of appeal – Condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause declined - 2010(2) CPC 7 N.C.

Sufficient reason – Abnormal delay of 266 days in filing appeal – Ground of alleged illness found unsatisfactory – Condonation of delay declined – 2010(1) CPC 205 N.C.

--Cause of action arose on 7.6.1994 – Complaint filed on 5.5.1997 – No satisfactory reason given for delay – Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2009(2) CPC 1 S.C.

—Cause of delay in filing of review application due to wrong advice - Ground held not sufficient - 2003(1) CPC 557 Pb.

—Certificate of illness issued by Doctor of distant place - Reason condonation not sufficient as medical certificate is doubtful - Sanjay Agro International v. Jarmanjit Singh, 2004(2) CPC 192 Pb.

—Copy of order misplaced by Advocate - Reason not sufficient for condonation of delay - 2004(2) CPC 345 Chd.—Delay cannot be condoned that time was spent in seeking legal opinion - 2003(2) CPC 485 Pb.—Delay due to seeking of legal opinion cannot be condoned as it is not sufficient cause - 2002(1) CPC 340 Chd.—Delay in filing appeal on account of seeking official legal opinion - Delay cannot be condoned - Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Haryana v. Shri Avinash Chander Bhakri, 2001(2) CPC 623 Chd.—Delay in filing of appeal due to official process - No sufficient reason for condonation of delay - General

Manager (Phones) & another v. Sucha Singh, 2001(2) CPC 245 Pb.—Delay of 1128 days due to frivolous civil litigation - Reason not sufficient to condone delay - 2003(2) CPC 348

N.C. —Delay of 124 days in filing revision not explained with sufficient ground - Revision merits dismissal - 2007(1)

CPC 478 N.C. —Delay of 157 days in filing appeal - Illness of one person of appellant company is not sufficient cause for

condonation of delay - 2003(1) CPC 628 N.C.--Delay of 2-½ years in filing complaint – Illiteracy is not sufficient ground to condone delay - 2009(2) CPC 568

U.P.

--Delay of 213 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined in absence of satisfactory reason - 2006(2) CPC 692 N.C.

--Delay of 243 days in filing of revision petition – Procedural delay cannot be taken as a valid reason for condonation of delay - 2010(2) CPC 30 N.C.

--Delay of 588 days in appeal – Mere contention of non receipt of order not sufficient for condonation of delay – 2009(1) CPC 16 N.C.

--Delay of 954 days in filing application to set aside exparte order due to fault on the part of Advocate – Delay condoned for sufficient reason shown - 2010(3) CPC 28 N.C.

—Delay of few days in filing complaint due to typhoid fever - Delay deserves to be condoned - 2004(1) CPC 80 Chd.

—Delay of more than 2 months in filing appeal - Reason for delay was given as counsel failed to intimate receipt of copy - Reason not satisfactory - Appeal time barred - 2004(1) CPC 16 N.C.

--Grievance relating to allotment of plot arose in 1986 whereas complaint filed in 1992 – Explanation regarding lack of knowledge not convincing – Complaint dismissed as withdrawn – 2011(1) CPC 30 N.C.

—M.D. was out of station resulting in delay in filing appeal - No affidavit of M.D. produced - Reason for delay not sufficient - G.P. Forests Development (India) Ltd. v. Baby Tarun minor, 2001(2) CPC 243 Pb.

--Moving of file from table to table is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2010(3) CPC 178 N.C.—Necessary amount with appeal could not be deposited due to loss in business resulting in delay of appeal - Reason

not sufficient - Condonation of delay declined - 2008(2) CPC 735 N.C.—No affidavit of the Divisional Officer causing delay in official process, produced - Appeal dismissed as time

barred - 2001(2) CPC 244 Pb. —No sufficient cause given for delay of 11 days in filing appeal - Appeal dismissed as time barred - Surat Goods

Transport Service v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(1) CPC 289 Pb.

29

--Procedural delay is not a sufficient reason for condoning delay of 105 days – 2010(1) CPC 385 N.C.--Reason for condonation of delay of 1270 days not sufficient – Condonation of delay denied - 2009(3) CPC 105

N.C. --Reason for delay of 111 days given that file was moving from table to table – Reason for condonation of delay is

not sufficient - 2009(3) CPC 595 N.C.—Reason for delay was given death of counsel - Appeal could be filed through another counsel - Condonation of

delay declined - Pearl International Tours and Travels Ltd. v. Smt. Kajol Dixit, 2004(1) CPC 163 Chd.--Reason for delay was given that Advocate did not inform about fate of the case in time – Reason not satisfactory –

Condonation of delay refused - 2010(3) CPC 35 N.C. —Reason for delay was given that Advocate misplaced the document - Condonation of delay cannot be allowed as

reason is not sufficient - 2003(2) CPC 239 N.C

--Reason of illness of Karta of family found not convincing for delay in filing of appeal - Condonation of delay declined as reason was not satisfactory - 2004(1) CPC 146 Chd.

—Shifting of petitioner’s office is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay - 2004(1) CPC 33 N.C. —Sufficient cause - The fact that appellant is a big organisation is no ground for condonation of delay - Delhi Vidut

Board v. Gopi Ram, 2001(1) CPC 650 Delhi —Sufficient cause for delay not proved - Condonation of delay declined - 2007(1) CPC 669 N.C.—Time spent in legal opinion is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

M/s. Mangat Ram & Sons, 2003(1) CPC 314 Pb.--Wrong legal notice and administrative reasons are not sufficient to condone delay of 246 days in filing appeal –

However, delay is condoned to do justice to the appellant victim of wrong decision – 2009(1) CPC 500 N.C.

Summer vacation - Limitation expired during summer vacation - Appeal not filed even on opening day - Condonation of delay declined - 2004(2) CPC 205 Pb.

Unattested Copy - Delay of one day in filing appeal as copy was not attested by official - Delay to be condoned - Union of India v. Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, 1999(1) CPC 541 Pb.

Undue Delay - Cause of action arose in 1987 whereas complaint filed in 1992 - Complaint rightly dismissed as time barred - 2002(1) CPC 630 N.C.

--Undue delay of 691 days in filing of appeal – No cause of delay explained – Order of State Commission dismissing appeal as time barred upheld - 2010(3) CPC 171 N.C.

--Information qua accident conveyed after 2 years - Terms of policy violated on account of undue delay - Repudiation of claim upheld - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Narinder Kaur, 2004(1) CPC 164 Chd.

Vague Allegation - Vague allegation of misplacement of file in the office, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay - 1997(1) CPC 165 Pb.

Vague Grounds - Delay cannot be condoned on the grounds which are found to be vague - 2003(1) CPC 183 Pb.

—Vague ground pleaded for cause of delay of 595 days - Condonation of delay declined - 2003(1) CPC 556 Pb. —Vague ground such as Administrative procedure pleaded for condonation of delay - Grounds not sufficient -

2004(1) CPC 608 C.G.

Vague plea – Condonation of delay claimed on vague plea is not permissible – 2011(1) CPC 187 N.C.

Wrong Address - Delay of 818 days in filing appeal - Allegation of wrong address cannot be accepted when was duly served by substituted service - 2003(2) CPC 82 N.C.

*****

Consumer Protection Cases[C.P.C.]

A Monthly Law Journal

30

Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of Telephone, Railways, Transport, Electricity, Housing Board, Urban Development Authorities, Industrial and

Consumer Associations etc.We publish a monthly Law Journal namely

“Consumer Protection Cases”.

Details of Volumes1. 1991 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock2. 1992 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock3. 1993 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock4. 1994 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only5. 1994 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only6. 1995 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only7. 1995 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only8. 1996 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only9. 1996 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only10. 1997 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only11. 1997 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only12. 1998 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only13. 1998 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only14. 1999 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only15. 1999 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only16. 2000 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only17. 2000 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only18. 2001 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only19. 2001 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only20. 2002 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only21. 2002 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only22. 2003 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only23. 2003 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only24. 2004 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock25. 2004 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only26. 2005 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only27. 2005 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only28. 2006 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only29. 2006 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only30. 2007 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only31. 2007 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only32. 2008 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only33. 2008 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only34. 2008 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only35. 2009 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only36. 2009 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only37. 2009 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only38. 2010 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only39. 2010 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only40. 2010 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only41. 2011 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only42. Annual Subscription 2011 For three Vols Rs. 1360/- only43. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 1991 to 2008 Rs. 1320/- only

Address for Correspondence :

31

Manager,Consumer Protection Cases

1251, Sector 8-C,Chandigarh – 160 009

Phones : 0172-2544830 and 09417414675

E-mail cpc_chd@yahoo.comwww.consumercases.in

****