Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/106/2022

manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.Ramakrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

M.Venkatakrishnan

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL        … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.106 of 2022

 

( Against the Order dated 17.11.2022 passed in C.C. No.164/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvallur )

 

                                                     Orders, dated:23.01.2023

State Bank of India,

Represented by its Manager,

Agricultural Development Branch,

Thiruvallur – 602 001.          … Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

 

- Versus –

Mr. G. Ramakrishnan,

S/o.Mr. Govinda Pillai,

Chittatoor Village,

Kilanur Post,

Thiruvallur – 602 021.                       … Respondent /Complainant. 

 

For Revision Petitioner / Opposite party : M/s. M. Venkatakrishnan

 

For Respondent /Complainant               : M/s. R. Selvakumar

 

    

This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (Open Court)

 

                This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 17.11.2022, passed by the DCDRC, Thiruvallur in C.C. No.164/2022, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party exparte for non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days and consequently, adjourned the Case to 02.12.2022 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

2.     Heard the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.  There was no representation for the respondent / complainant.

3.     This Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte for non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days.  When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party submitted that since the details about the civil suit vide O.S. No.860/1988 on the file of Learned District Munsiff requested by the panel advocate could not be secured immediately, the revision petitioner / Bank was not in a position to file its version within the stipulated time.  Thus, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:17.11.2022.   When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the opposite party pending will further delay the matter.  Since the reasons assigned by the opposite party seems to be bonafide and also, in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 17.11.2022, passed in C.C. No.164/2022 by the DCDRC, Thiruvallur in setting the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte is set aside, and the Opposite Party shall file his Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.164/2022 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT.

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/January/2023.