Order No. 5

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present and files written objection against the Misc. Application. Copy served.

Opposite party no.2 Alok Ranjan Mitra is found absent on repeated calls.

It is now 2.35 P.M.

Today is fixed for hearing of Misc. Application dated 09/01/2023 filed by opposite party no.2.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

On scrutiny of the Misc. Application dated 09/01/2023, we find that the same has been filed in person by opposite party no.2 though opposite party no.2 filed vakalatnama on 10/06/2022 in CC/38/2022.

On scrutiny of the record we find opposite party no.2 filed instant Misc. Application in person on 09/01/2023 U/S 40 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated 08/08/2022, order dated 12/04/2022 and order dated 18/10/2022. It has been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that on 08/08/2022 no submission was made by his Ld. Advocate to the tune ‘Ld. Advocate for opposite party no.2 frankly states that he will not pray for time to file w/v.

Moreover, the opposite party no.2 is only confirming party to the agreement dated 25/12/1996 as such he is not a necessary party to this case. The complainant has not impleded the necessary parties to the case as well as the case is barred by limitation U/S 69 of the C.P. Act,2019.

On perusal of the record we find that opposite party no.2 appeared in the case on 10/06/2022 and filed vakalatnama appointing four Advocates to represent him before the Commission but deliberately did not file any written version in the case within the statutory period.

Thereafter on the same date the instant Commission had been pleased to fix the case ex-parte as against the opposite party no.2 vide order no.5 dated 08/8/2022.

We do not find any truth in the allegation made by opposite party no.2.

Had there been any occasion that the Commission passed any order contrary to the prayer made by the Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.2 the opposite party no.2 would have preferred to ventilate his grievances before the Appellate Authority or to file an Application U/S 40 of the C.P. Act,2019 immediately within the statutory period of 30 days before this Commission for redressal.

On scrutiny of the record of CC/38/2022, we find the case is fixed for ex-parte argument.

Therefore, the question raised by the opposite party no.2 that the case is not barred by limitation and want of necessary party,  will be adjudicated on the touch stone of evidence of the parties at the time of final disposal of the case.

We also find that the instant application has been filed by opposite party no.2 after lapse of 4 months from the date of order dated 08/08/2022, which is clearly barred by limitation under the provision of Section 40 of the C.P. Act,2019.

It is needless to reiterate that the record no.CC/38/2022 is in advance stage and the complainant already filed BNA and the case is fixed for ex-parte argument/

Having considered the discussion made above we are of the opinion that the entire allegation made by the opposite party no.2 indicates that the same is afterthought and had been filed to delay proceedings.

Therefore, the Misc. Application being devoid any merit is dismissed on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant.