This revision is directed against the order dated 08/06/2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Froum, Nagpur in  EA No. 26/2011 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present applicant for dismissal of the execution proceeding filed under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The applicant herein is non-applicant/accused in the execution proceeding No. 26/2011. The challenge is mainly directed towards the fact that the order dated 08/06/2011 dismissing objection/application was passed in absence of applicants/accused.

          The facts to the extent relevant to decide the instant revision are as under:-

          The non-applicant herein is the original complainant and had filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur bearing C. C. No. 111/2005 and the present revisionist is the original opponent.  The C.C. No. 111/2005 was dismissed vide order dated 05/05/2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur.

          Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of the Consumer Complaint No. 111/2005 the applicant herein filed a appeal Before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties to the appeal arrived at the settlement and executed an MOU and jointly filed the pursis before the Commission. The Commission therefore disposed off the appeal in terms of MOU.

          The Non applicant herein vide Misc Application No. SA-26/2011 filed an application before Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compliance of the MOU executed between parties. On receipt of the notice of the Misc Application SA-26/2011 proceedings, the applicant herein filed an application for dismissal of proceeding pending under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The applicant there by contended that they had complied with the MOU.

           The application came up for hearing before the Forum on 08/06/2011.

           On 08/06/2011 the applicant No. 1 and 2 /accused below filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that applicant No. 1 had to attend funeral of a nearest relative and therefore was out of station and applicant No. 2 was suffering from ill health due to old age and was totally bedridden.  Therefore, unable to remain present before the  Forum. There was also another application filed by the counsel for the applicant/accused seeking adjournment on the ground that the counsel was busy in his personal work and therefore can not attend the court for hearing on that day. The forum dismissed both the applications on 08/06/2011.

          The perusal of the applications filed by the applicants and their counsel and the impugned order clearly reflect that it bears the same date i.e. 08/06/2011. Therefore, it is inferred that the impugned order passed by the Forum was in absence of applicant/accused and their counsel. Therefore it is not maintainable in law.  The Forum should have giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants in the interest of justice and no order could have been passed in absence of the accused.   

          We refrain ourselves from making any observation on the merits of the impugned order and pass the following order.

                                                                                                                        ORDER

1.      The Revision is partly allowed. The Forum is directed to give an   opportunity of hearing to the revision       petitioners in EA No. 26/2011.

2.      Revision Petition is disposes of accordingly.

3.      Parties to remain present before the Forum on 03/10/2011

4.      No order as to cost.

Pronounced on  26/08/2011.