STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

                                                      MA No.596/2024 in

                                                      CC/3/2024

Gurbakhsish Singh & Another Vs Galaxy Developers and another 

                Application to review the order dated 19.4.2024 passed by this           Commission in CC/3/2024.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

                       ORDER

                   This application has been filed by Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Sarvpreet Kaur, authorized signatory and representative of Galaxy
Developers- OP NO.1  for review of the order dated 19.4.2024 passed by this Commission whereby she was proceeded against ex parte.

2.                 It is pleaded in the application that on 22.5.2024 Counsel for the applicant came to know that the present case is pending for hearing before this Commission wherein applicant has been impleaded as Opposite Party No.2. When Counsel for the applicant/OP No.2 wanted to file memo of appearance on behalf  of  OP No.2 he was informed that the applicant has already been proceeded against ex parte on 19.4.2024. It is further pleaded that the applicant is not associated with the working of  OP No.1 and she has been falsely implicated in the  present case and that no notice/summons were served upon the applicant, hence she was not in the knowledge of the pendency of the present case.  

3.                In fact, instead of filing application for setting aside ex parte order, this application has been filed for review of the order dated 19.4.2024 whereby OP No.2/applicant was proceeded against ex parte. It is pertinent to mention here that notice of the complaint was sent at the residential address of OP No.2 but no report was received regarding service of notice. However, as per tracking report, the item booked through speed post/envelope containing the notice of the complaint and paper-book stood delivered on 12.2.2024 at the given address of the applicant/OP NO.2. As none has entered appearance on behalf of OP No.2 on 12.2.2024 the complaint was listed for 19.4.2024 for awaiting the appearance of OP No.2. Since none has put in appearance on behalf of OP No.2 on 19.4.2024, she was proceeded against ex parte.

 4.             Though in the present application there is no such request for setting aside the  ex parte order  yet   the application for review of the order dated 19.4.2024   whereby OP No.2 was proceeded against ex parte is impliedly for setting aside the same.  Even otherwise,   it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, by affording an opportunity to the parties of putting forth their version, and leading evidence. When the hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. In our considered opinion, for proper adjudication of the  dispute in the complaint, it would be appropriate if the applicant/Opposite Party No.2 is allowed to file her written version to the complaint and evidence in support of the same. Accordingly the order dated 19.4.2024 is reviewed and OP No.2/applicant is afforded an opportunity to file written version/evidence, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-.  The costs shall be paid to the complainant, before the written version and evidence, are filed, by OP No.2/applicant on the date fixed in the complaint i.e. 8.8.2024

5.                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.