Heard Smt. Anjali Gusain, learned counsel for the revisionist, on admission.

Admit the revision petition.

This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 220 of 2016; Smt. Lata Joshi and another Vs. Drishti Eye Institute and others, whereby the District Forum has closed the opportunity of the revisionist of filing the written statement.

It is worth to depict that as far as possible, the matters be heard and decided on merits.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Ji Dass Vs. Mohan Singh; 1978 ARC 496, postulated the law as under:

“Court’s discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing.”

In view of the above dictum of law pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the principle of justice warrants that the revisionist needs to be granted one opportunity of filing the written statement.  It would not be out of place to mention here that there should be no grievance from the side of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 – complainants, if the consumer complaint is decided by the District Forum on merit after taking into consideration the defence so set up by the revisionist in the written statement.

Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself and the order impugned dated 28.11.2018 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, thereby closing the opportunity of the revisionist of filing the written statement, is hereby set aside. The District Forum is directed to grant one opportunity to the revisionist of filing the written statement to the consumer complaint.  There shall be no order as to costs.