These three appeals have been filed by the Kanga Central Cooperative Bank Limited (opposite party No. 1) against the orders dated 5.10.2004 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) in original complaints No. 19 of 2001, 20 of 2001 and 21 of 2001, which were filed by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board against the present appellant and other relevant banks, alleging deficiency in service on the part of banks in not collecting the payment of three cheques, which were handed over to the appellant-bank for collection and not crediting the amount of cheques in the account of the complainant. The complaints were resisted by the banks denying any deficiency in service on their part and the appellant-bank sought to explain the circumstances in which amount of cheques could not be collected and credited in the account of the complainant-Board. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaints filed by the complainant-Board and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- in complaints No. 19 of 2001, Rs.30,000/- in complaint No. 20 of 2001 and Rs. 50,000/- in complaint No. 21 of 2001 in favour of the complainant and against the appellant-bank holding them deficient in service with the stipulation that the amount so awarded shall carry interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of presentation of the cheque to the date of return of the cheque unrealized. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-bank has filed these appeals. 2. We have heard Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant-bank and Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 4 but had not the advantage of hearing the say of other respondents as none appears on their behalf at the time of hearing of the appeals. 3. Since the facts and question of law involved in all the three appeals are similar, we, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by this common order. 4. In an attempt to assail the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant-bank has submitted that alongwith the memorandum of appeal, the appellant-bank has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to lead additional evidence i.e. postal receipt, letter of communication received from Supdt. Post Offices as also voucher. Though the reply to the memorandum of appeal has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 but no specific reply has been filed to the application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. The application is, however, opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, primarily, on the ground that the appellant has not been able to show any good ground or justification for not producing the record which they seek to produce now at the belated stage, more particularly, so when the said record was in the power and possession of the appellant even at the time when the complaint was pending. There is no denial of the position that any party facing the legal proceedings is expected to act diligently in prosecuting or defending the legal proceedings and to take all necessary steps, which are necessary in that behalf. However, in the present case, we notice that the appellant is a bank, which was accused of committing deficiency in service in not realizing the amount of three cheques deposited with them for collecting the payment from some outstation bank and they are defending the same on the main plea that the payment was not received from the other banks. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all possible actions which were required to be taken in order to discharge their duty and responsibility were taken by promptly forwarding the cheques to the outstation drawee banks but it was latter banks, who returned the cheques unpaid after undue delay of 3-4 months under one or the other advise and promptly thereafter the complainant-Board was apprised of the factual position. He submits that the appellant is in a position to establish the same by producing cogent documentary evidence, which unfortunately could not be produced and perhaps due to that, the State Commission held the appellant-bank guilty of deficiency in service and made the impugned order. 6. Going by the averments and allegations made in the complaint and the stand taken by the appellant-bank in their defence version, the important question was as to which bank viz. the appellant or the drawee bank had committed any negligence or deficiency in service. In case the appellant bank could show that it had taken all possible steps, which were required by them within a reasonable time, it could not have been held guilty. In this context, additional evidence which is sought to be produced by the appellant becomes relevant and material. In our view, to reach a correct and proper conclusion and to decide the matter effectively, it is necessary that the appellant is afforded further opportunity to establish their defence plea by leading additional evidence. For these reasons, we are inclined to allow the application, purportedly moved under Order XLI Rule 27 seeking permission to lead additional evidence. This would necessitate reconsideration of the matter by the State Commission. 7. In the result, we allow the application moved under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- in each case to the respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board . As a consequence, the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the State Commission are hereby set aside. The complaints filed by the appellant are remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, after permitting the appellant to lead further evidence as is sought by them with right to the complainant to lead any evidence in rebuttal. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.08.2010 for receiving further directions in the matter. The complaints shall be disposed of by the State Commission expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. No order as to cost in these proceedings.