The case record is posted today for hearing of the case. The Advocate for O.Ps No.1 & 3 is absent, no steps filed. The Advocate for O.P No.2 files a petition praying time for one month to file written version. It is stated in the petition that O.P No.2 has filed written version on 01.09.2015, but it has not been available in the case record.
On perusal of the case record, it is seen that on 30.11.2015, the O.P No.2 was set ex-parte as he has not been appeared in this case within the stipulated period from issuance of notice against him. O.P No.2 has stated that he has filed written version on 01.09.2015. But, on perusal of the order dated 01.09.2015, it is found that service return was not back from O.P No.2 although the notice was issued against him through registered post on dated 14.02.2015, as registration receipt reveals. From the above, it is clear that O.P No.2 has not at all appeared in this case and has been set ex-parte. That apart, when he has already been set ex-parte, the question of prayer for time to file written version does not sound good. Therefore, the time petition filed by the O.P No.2 is rejected.
On the other hand, the Advocate for Complainant files a memo stating therein that he has no instruction from the Complainant to take any further step in this case. On perusal of the case record, it reveals that since 28.04.2020 till date, neither the Complainant remained present nor his Advocate took any step on his behalf. From the above nature and conduct of the Complainant, it is clearly made out that the Complainant has no interest to prosecute this case and unnecessarily wasted the valuable time of this Commission. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and conduct of the Complainant, this Commission is of the view that the complaint of the Complainant should be dismissed.
Accordingly, the complaint of the Complainant is dismissed for non-prosecution of the case.
