MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) has been filed by the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 challenging the judgment and order No. 7 dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Siliguri in Complaint Case No. 26 of 2017 directing the case to be proceeded ex-parte against the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 as he failed to file written version within statutory period of 45 days since the date of receiving notice.

          The case was heard ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant.

          Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 drew the notice of the Bench to the Order No. 6 dated 20.06.2017 wherein the Ld. District Forum had recorded the appearance of the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 filing Vakalatnama for the first time.  It also revealed from the said order that the Ld. Forum, as per prayer of the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3, allowed it to file w.v. on 28.07.2017.

          The Ld. District Forum, however, in the impugned order dated 28.07.2017, did not accept the w.v. from the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 as, according to the observation made in the impugned order, the statutory period of 45 days for filing w.v. had expired since 31.05.2017, the date on which the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 was served with the notice of the complaint case.

          The Ld. Advocate submitted that the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 was present before the Ld. District Forum on 28.07.2017 and submitted w.v. on the same date which was specified for the purpose in the order No. 6 dated 20.06.2017.  Unfortunately, as he continued, the Ld. District Forum refused to accept the same on the ground already stated hereinabove and passed an arbitrary direction of ex-parte hearing against the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3.

          Since, the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 went to submit w.v. on 28.07.2017 as per direction of the Ld. District Forum dated 20.06.2017, as the Ld. Advocate continued, the interest of his client had been seriously prejudiced.  The Ld. Advocate prayed for the impugned order to be set aside and the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3 be allowed to furnish the w.v. so that the order deciding the issue could be passed on proper assessment of the merit of the case.

          Perused the papers on record.  We do not have any contradiction with the contents of submissions made by the Revisionist/O.P. No. 3.  The Ld. District Forum, in its order dated 20.06.2017, was specific in fixing 28.07.2017 as the date for filing w.v.  Its subsequent order dated 28.07.2017 appeared to be fallacious in view of the fact that it had disagreed to accept the w.v. on the date fixed by itself.  It had no alternative also as any step other than passing the impugned order would have led to deviation from the guiding principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.  It is felt that the Ld. District Forum should have been more conscious while fixing the date for filing w.v. so as to ensure filing of the same within the statutory period.

          Feeling the fact that the Respondent/O.P. No. had merit in his submission, I intend to allow the Revision Petition in the interest of justice and on the instant occasion, without cost.

          Hence, ordered, that the Revision Petition stands allowed.  The Ld. District Forum is directed to accept the w.v. and dispose of the petition on the merit of the complaint as per procedure laid down in the Act.  The impugned order stands set aside.  Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 18.12.2019.