(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) Both the parties are remaining absent. Intimation of the date fixed was already published on notice board and internet and also supplying information to the Bar. It further appears that after filing of the appeal, presumably U/s.27-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for brevity), the appellant prefer to continuously remain absent.
(2) The appellant takes an execution to an order dated 27/02/2008 whereby in an execution application No.43/2007, Shri Dattatraya Keshav Uttekar Vs. Dr.Suresh Ramchandra Pawar,, since District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara issued a non-bailable warrant against the him. We find that the appeal from such order would not lie. Besides this, only in view of absence of the appellant, to secure his presence if the warrant is required to be issued, no fault could be found with the impugned order. Under the circumstances, we hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
(2) No order as to costs.
Pronounce on 15th December, 2011.
