Respondent has filed I.A. No. 6145/2014 for exemption of Respondents No. 5 & 6.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed application for deletion of Respondents No. 5 & 6 for the purposes of this revision petition.  Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 do not oppose this application.  As this matter pertains to taking written statement on record, application filed by the petitioner, not opposed by respondent, is allowed and names of Respondents No. 5 & 6 are deleted from array of parties of this revision petition.

          Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 10-10-2013 counsel for Respondent No. 1 filed Vakalatnama and matter was adjourned for filing written statement and Vakalatnama on behalf of other opposite parties.  On 03-01-2014 Opposite Party No. 1 filed reply, which was adopted by other opposite parties and matter was adjourned for filing rejoinder and complainant’s evidence by way of affidavit.  Complainant filed application on 28-04-2014 with a prayer that written statement filed by opposite party may not be taken on record and defense may be struck off.  Learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 29-04-2014 rejected application against which this revision petition has been filed.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in taking written statement after 45 days and further submitted that even without application for condonation of delay and without reply to his application, learned State Commission dismissed application filed by the complainant without any reason.  Hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law as copy of complaint was given to him on 10-10-2013 and he filed written statement on the due date given by State Commission, which has already been taken on record, hence revision petition be dismissed.

          Perusal of impugned order reveals that it is not a speaking order.  Learned State Commission’s order runs as under:--

“Instead of filing rejoinder and complainant’s evidence, counsel for the complainant moved an application for not taking on record the written version filed by the OP as the same is filed beyond 45 days.  After hearing arguments, the application moved by the complainant’s counsel is rejected.

Complainant to file rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit within four weeks with advance copy to counsel for the OPs.”

          Perusal of order reveals that no application of mind has been made while dismissing detailed application filed by the complainant and simply it has been mentioned that application filed by the complainant is rejected, which is not in accordance with law.  While rejecting application, learned State Commission should have given reasons for rejection of application and in such circumstances, matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide application by a speaking order.

          Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner has not challenged order dated 03-01-2014 and in such circumstances, this revision petition is not maintainable.  At this stage, this revision petition  is   maintainable  against order  dated  29-04-2014 by which application filed by the complainant has been dismissed.  It is for the State Commission to take note of this objection after hearing objections of the complainant, while deciding application filed by the complainant for rejection of written statement.

          Consequently, revision petition field by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 29-04-2014 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. 290/2013 – Sanjay Singh Vs. Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and State Commission is directed to decide application dated 28-04-2014 filed by the complainant by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and opposite party will be at liberty to file reply to the application.

          Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on due date, i.e., 12-11-2014.

          State Commission will not insist complainant for filing rejoinder and evidence before disposal of application dated 28-04-2014.