Final Order / Judgement

(Delivered on 23/11/2016)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. Advocate  Mr. Deopujari is present for the revision petitioner in above two listed RP Nos. 16/21 and 16/22. Advocate Mr. Kalraiya is present for respondent in both the appeals and he filed his power  taken on record.
2. Advocate Mr. Kalraiya had filed  a composite application taking objection that the appellant in both the revision petitions  which were  respectively original opposite party ( for short OP) No. 2 and OP No. 3 in the original complaint No. 702 by respondent  filed as complainant have filed the present two revision petitions against the order passed dated 9/2/2016 by the learned Forum, Nagpur. He objected that in both these revision petitions, the revisionist did not implead all the OPs arrayed in the complaint as necessary respondent. He therefore had objected to the revision petitions  requesting them to be not tenable and hence liable to be dismissed.
3. During the hearing of the application filed so, the advocate for the petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners were declared exparte though they were ready to appear before the learned Forum . Hence the grievance was only to allow them to take part in the proceedings of the complaint and hence it was not necessary to implead all the OPs as respondent in the revision petitions. He submitted that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioners in both the revision petitions be given a chance to appear in the complaint and plead their case in the interest of justice.
4. The advocate for the respondent decided   not to press his application for objection and to hear the revisions on merit at the point of admission.
5. We considered the contentions of both the parties and in view of the  advocate of the respondent  not pressing his objections, we find that in the best interest of justice, the petitioners in both the listed appeals should get an appropriate opportunity to plead their case by taking part in the proceedings of the complaint filed before the learned Forum.
6. The advocate for the petitioners submitted that he could not remain present  in spite of getting a brief from the petitioners as he was suffering illness.  Also as the advocate of the respondent consented to give opportunity to the appellant, we decide to allow the present revision petitions. We therefore inclined to set aside the order of the learned Forum passed on 9/2/2016 declaring the petitioners in the above listed two petitions to be exparte and allow both petitioners to take part in the proceedings of the complaint from the stage they were declared exparte.
7. Both parties  are  directed to appear before the learned Forum on the next adjourned date of hearing of the complaint which the advocate of the appellant submitted to be on 13/01/2017 without any notice. Hence the order.

ORDER

1. The revision petitions in both the above listed RP No. 16/21 and 16/22 are allowed.
2. Both parties to appear before the learned Forum on 13/01/2017 without notice.
3. Copy of the order be provided to both the parties, free of cost and a copy of the order be sent to the learned Forum for information in complaint No. 702/2015.
4. Both petitions stand disposed of.