Uttarakhand

StateCommission

RP/1/2021

Swami Maheswaranand Shishya Swami Prakashanand Sarswati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Naptol First Flight Rmemx India P. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sanjay Yadav

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
23/16, Circular Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001
Dehradun-248001
Final Order
 
Revision Petition No. RP/1/2021
( Date of Filing : 25 Jan 2021 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 18/01/2020 in Case No. 37/2019 of District Haridwar)
 
1. Swami Maheswaranand Shishya Swami Prakashanand Sarswati
r/o Sarswati Ashram R.K. Mission Road, Kankal Po. Kankal Teh. & Distt. Haridwar
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
2. Service Center, Goswami Automobiles
through its Auth. Sig. Basement, New Haridwar Road, Malakpur chungi Roorkee, Ps, Kotwali Roorkee
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Manager, Naptol First Flight Rmemx India P. Ltd.
12/1 New Sunmil Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai
2. Manager, Blue Dot Courier
Groung floor, New Market, gurudwara Road,
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S. Tripathi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Udai Singh Tolia MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 Feb 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Case is called out.

None is present on behalf of the revisionist.

In compliance of order dated 13.01.2022, court notice was issued to the revisionist.

According to office report dated 28.02.2022, the registered court notice was issued to the revisionist on 15.01.2022, which has not been received back in the office as yet.

The office has submitted the tracking report of registered notice issued to the revisionist, according to which, the registered notice issued to the revisionist, has been delivered.

This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed by learned District Commission, Haridwar in Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2019; Swami Maheshwaranand Vs. Manager, Naaptol First Flight Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. and another, by which the application (Paper No. 3) moved by the revisionist for recall of order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Execution Application        No. 101 of 2015, was rejected. 

According to office report dated 25.01.2021, the revision petition has been preferred after a delay of 283 days’.  The revision petition was received through speed post mode.

The office has made an objection that against the impugned order, the appeal would lie and not the revision petition, as has been preferred.

The perusal of record reveals that on the date of passing the impugned order by learned District Commission, there was no representation on behalf of either of the parties.

Inspite of issuing court notice to the revisionist, for appearing before the Commission for hearing on delay condonation application and inspite of the same having been duly served, none has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press the delay condonation application.

This apart, by impugned order passed by learned District Commission, the miscellaneous application moved by the revisionist has finally been decided and the record has been consigned, therefore, against the said order, appeal would be maintainable and not the revision petition, which objection has rightly been endorsed by the office.

In view of above, the revision petition is dismissed, being not maintainable.

Let the record be consigned.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S. Tripathi]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Udai Singh Tolia]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.