HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition is at the instance of the revisionists/ petitioners and is directed against the order No.3 dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III (South), West Bengal ( in short, 'the District Commission') in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/7/2024 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioners/ revisionists.
2. The respondent being the complainant filed a petition of complaint being No. CC/7/2024 before the Learned District Commission praying for the following reliefs: -

 Complainant prays for refund of booking fees/money of Rs.      5,00,000/- (Rupees  five lakhs) with admissible banking interest after charging reasonable process  fees not more than Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only  for Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees five lakhs).

3. The petitioners/ revisionists entered appearance in this case and filed a petition praying for staying the operation of the Consumer Case till the disposal of the insolvency proceedings on the ground as stated in the petition.
4. The Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the said application by the order impugned.  
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order the revisionists/petitioners have preferred this revisional application.  
6. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists/ petitioners and carefully perused the record, memo of revision petition and other documents.  
7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists/ petitioners and on perusal of the record it appears to me that after filing of the instant Consumer Case being No. CC/7/2024, notices were duly issued upon the revisionists/ opposite parties and it was duly served upon them on 12/02/2024. But the revisionists/ opposite parties did not turn up and did not file written version within the statutory period of time. Since, the statutory period of limitation for filing written version by the opposite parties has already expired, the case was proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed the petition praying for staying the operation of the Consumer Case.  I think that the Learned District Commission has rightly rejected the said application filed by the revisionists/petitioners since the case was proceeded ex parte against them. 
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists in support of his argument has relied upon the decisions reported in (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 258 : (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 818 : (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 427 : 2021 SCC online SC 152.  P. MOHANRAJ AND OTHERS -VS- SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED. However, reliance of this reported judgment(s) in the adjudication of this matter, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.  
9. In view of the matter, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revision petition is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.  
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Learned District Commission  is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.  
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once. 
12. Office to comply.