SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA,  MEMBER 
 

1. The instant  Revision Petition has been filed by the Revisionist/M/s. Fairland Development India Limited questioning the propriety of Order No. 12 dated 28.08.2023 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit-II (Central) in CC case being  No. 30/2022.
2. Order No. 12 dated 28.08.2023 is reproduced as under:

“OP No. 2 has not entered appearance.

Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 is present andhe files a petition stating that no copy of annexure has been served upon the OP No. 1 with the prayerto expunge the name of the OP No. 1. Heard considered.

It appears that the notice has been served to OPNo. 1 way backon 07.05.2022 and no W/V has beenfiled by the OP No. 1 to contest the case.

No Vokalatnama is filed for the OP No. 1.

As the petition filed by the OP No. 1 today is belated stage, hence, the said petition of the OP No. 1 is considered and rejected.The case do proceedex parte against the OP No. 1.

Fix 06.10.2023 for appearance of the complainant and further order. OP No. 2 may file their W/V within stipulated period.”

3. Ld. Advocate for the revisionist/OP No.1 of the original complaint case  has submitted before us that the  Ld. DCDRC has erred in law and in fact by not considering and  allowing the application preferred by the Revisionist/OP No. 1 on 28.08.2023 and hence the order dated 28.08.2023 is liable to be recalled and the Revisionist  be granted an opportunity to contest the complaint case proceeding before the Ld. DCDRC concerned.
4. The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has further submitted that the Ld. DCDRC  has erred in law by not  considering  that the Revisionist was  not served properly with complete set of complaint petition and to be specific  the annexure appended to the complaint petition and as such the Revisionist was not in a position to prepare and file the written version within the stipulated time without considering and/or having the knowledge of annexure relied upon by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., Complainant Nos. 1 & 2.
5. She has  further submitted that the stipulated statutory period of 45 days  to file written version cannot commence unless the complaint petition  is duly served in full and complete manner upon the contesting OPs.
6. She has further submitted that the Revisionist has taken   immediate steps by preferring the application dated 28.08.l2023, inter alia, seeking necessary direction upon the complainants to serve the set of annexure to enable the Revisionist to file the written version by the next date so fixed.
7. Ld. DCDRC has passed the impugned order on 28.08.2023 without applying the judicial mind and as such, the order dated 28.08.2023 is liable to  be set aside.
8. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that they are debarred from filing written version within the stipulated time for the reason of non-serving of the complete set of complaint petition and as such, she has prayed for allowing  the Revisionist/OP No. 1 to contest the case by filing written version.
9. As such, she has prayed for setting aside  the order dated 28.08.2023 passed  by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit-II.
10. At the time of admission hearing, Ld. Advocate for  the revisionist has filed the daily order sheet of the Ld. DCDRC in connection with the complaint case CC/30/2022 wherefrom it appears that the notice has been served to OP No. 1 on 07.05.2022 (vide order No. 4 dated 19.05.2022) and on that date the Ld. DCDRC has  been pleased to fix the date on 21.07.2022 for S/R, steps in respect of OP No. 2 and direction was  given to OP No. 1 to file written version within the stipulated period, if they like.
11. On 21.07.2022 the OP No. 1 has not entered appearance before the Ld. DCDRC and the next date was fixed on 26.09.2022.
12. Thereafter, on 26.09.2022, 06.12.2022, 13.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 16.05.2023 and on 28.08.2023 OP No. 1 has not filed any written version to contest the case.
13. After a considerable period on 28.08.2023,  OP No. 1 appeared before the Ld. DCDRC and  filed the petition stating that no copy of annexure has been served to them with prayer  to expunge the name of the OP No. 1.
14. On  28.08.2023, Ld. DCDRC has rightly observed that notice has been served upon OP No. 1/Revisionist on 07.05.2022 and since no written version has been filed within time the case was proceed ex parte against the OP No. 1.
15. It appears from the record that OP No. 1  has received the notice on 07.05.2022  and the Revisionist has failed to show any cogent document which can prove that they have not  received the notice on 07.05.2022. Moreover, if the notice was served on 07.05.2022 without the annexure appended to the complaint petition, the OP No. 1 ought to have  appeared before the  Ld. DCDRC immediately  and ought to have submitted that they had not received  the annexure for which they could not file the written version. The petition filed on 28.08.2023 should be filed  by the revisionist upon receipt of the notice on 07.02.2022 but in spite of receiving the notice on 07.05.2022, the revisionist was in deep slumber and after a considerable period i.e.,  after one year three months (approx.) they appeared before the Ld. DCDRC with a petition praying for supplying the annexure as well as expunging their name which is not at all tenable in the eye of law.
16. In view of above, we find no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Ld. DCDRC Kolkata Unit-II, which calls for any revisional interference by this Commission.
17. Accordingly, the Revision Petition filed by Revisionist/OP No. 1 is dismissed being not admitted.
18. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata  Unit-II (Central).