Heard Sh. Suresh Gautam, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sh. M.K. Kohli, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 26 of 2018, whereby the District Forum has recalled its order dated 17.07.2018, thereby closing the opportunity of the opposite parties of filing evidence and granted an opportunity to the opposite party No. 1 to file evidence.  The impugned order was passed on the ground that after passing of the order dated 17.07.2018, thereby closing the opportunity of the opposite parties to file evidence, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 appeared before the District Forum and moved an application to recall the order and requested for granting time for filing evidence.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another; [2015 (33) LCD 1762] = IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC), the District Forum was not having power to recall its order.  Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is bad in the eyes of law and the District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

The District Forum has allowed the application moved by opposite party No. 1 on the ground that after passing the order with regard to closing the opportunity of the opposite parties to file evidence, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 appeared before the District Forum and prayed for grant of time for filing evidence.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the opportunity was granted to the opposite party No. 1 to file evidence.

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others (supra), the District Forum was not having power to recall its order, is correct, but at the same time, it need to be stated that the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 appeared before the District Forum on the same day after the order regarding closure of evidence of opposite parties was passed.

In view of the above law pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the District Forum can not legally be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.  However, at the same time, we direct that the evidence filed by opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum on 06.08.2018 shall remain part of the record and the same be considered by the District Forum while deciding the consumer complaint on merit.  The revisionist would be at liberty to rebut the evidence filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum.

With the aforesaid observations, revision petition is disposed of.