Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant got a house on hire-purchase basis from the petitioner.  He got the possession of the house on 7.5.1990.  Alleging that there were various defects in the house, which were not rectified in spite of requests made by him, he filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, by its order dated 25.4.1998, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.55,000/- to the complainant within 30 days and in failure to do so, the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 18%.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded as costs and Rs.15,000/- as special compensation.

          District Forum took up the matter again on 15.5.1998 and held that, after the judgement had been signed, complainant in connivance with Ranjeet Yadav, Stenographer working in the office, had made following changes in the original copies of the judgement :

                             “(i)          90 days was replaced by 30 days;

(ii)             Rs.1,000/- was replaced by Rs.10,000/-; and

(iii)           Rs.10,000/- was replaced by Rs.50,000/-.”

Since a fraud had been committed, the District Forum reviewed/recalled its order dated 25.4.1998 and dismissed the complaint. 

Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal against the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by the District Forum.  By the impugned order, State Commission has allowed the appeal by holding that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to review its own order dated 25.4.1998.  Subsequent order dated 15.5.1998 passed by the District Forum has been set aside. 

Petitioner opposite party, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to review its own order.  Supreme Court in Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah vs. Bombay Hospital – 111(1999) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that the District Forum and the State Commission do not have the jurisdiction to review their orders.

The effect of the judgement of the State Commission is that the order dated 25.4.1998 of the District Forum stands revived.  Petitioner, which was the opposite party, did not have the opportunity to challenge the order dated 25.4.1998, as the same had been reviewed by the District Forum later on, on 15.5.1998. 

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to file an appeal against the original order of the District Forum dated 25.4.1998, which the petitioner could not do in view of the subsequent order passed by the District Forum on 15.5.1998 recalling the order dated 25.4.1998 and dismissing the complaint.

We find substance in this submission.  As the District Forum had recalled its order dated 25.4.1998, which was against the petitioner and dismissed the complaint by its order dated 15.5.1998, petitioner had no occasion to challenge the order dated 25.4.1998, which stands revived as a result of the impugned order of the State Commission.  In all fairness and in the interests of justice, petitioner opposite party should be given liberty to challenge the order dated 25.4.1998, as the same stands revived by the impugned order of the State Commission.  Petitioner opposite party would be at liberty to file the appeal against the order dated 25.4.1998 within 30 days from today.  If the appeal is filed within 30 days from today, then the State Commission is directed to decide the same on merits without objection to limitation.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.