Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 27-05-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in C.C. No. 352/2015.

It is the case of the Revisionist that on receipt of notice, its Ld. Advocate appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 03-03-2016 and prayed for time to file vakalatnama and WV.  Accordingly, the next date was fixed on 27-05-2016.  It is claimed that due to mis-posting in the diary of the Ld. Advocate, he could not appear before the Ld. District Forum and consequently, the matter was fixed ex parte.  Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. District Forum, the present Revision is filed.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the Respondents.  Therefore, the matter was heard ex parte.

It appears from the Confonet website that the instant complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum on 10-07-2015 and on that day itself, notice was issued to all the OPs.  It further appears from the order sheet dated 13-10-2015 that on that day, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant filed postal track record showing due service of notice upon all the OPs.  It goes to show that the Revisionist received notice before 13-10-2015. 

Against this backdrop, it is not clear to us why its Ld. Advocate appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 03-03-2016 and as it appears, on that day too, he did not file any Vakalatnama or WV and accordingly, next date was fixed on 27-05-2016 and going by the version of the Revisionist, that day also WV could not be filed due to mis-posting of date in the diary of the Ld. District Forum.

In this regard, it bears mentioning that in terms of Sec. 13(a) of the 1986 Act, it is incumbent on the part of the District Forum to  refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. 

It is indeed shocking that in utter disdain to such statutory stipulation, the Ld. District Forum fixed the next date of the case after nearly 3 months since admission of the case.  Thereafter, when the Respondent No. 1 filed track report showing due service of notice, the Ld. District Forum instead of proceeding ex parte in the matter on that day itself, fixed the next day after nearly 3 long months on 03-03-2016. Again, when the Revisionist appeared on 03-03-2016 and prayed for time, the Ld. District Forum accorded another 3 months time (approx.) to file WV.  In this way, the statutory stipulation of submission of WV within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice was thrown to the windows.  This is indeed unfortunate.  It is to be kept in mind that being the creature of statute, we are all duty-bound to adhere to the statutory provisions strictly. 

Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that statutory period for filing WV got over long ago and further that, no plausible reason is given by the Revisionist behind skipping the proceedings on 13-10-2015 or non-filing of WV on 03-03-2016, the instant petition deserves no favourable consideration.

The Revision, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Revision stands dismissed being bereft of any merit.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.