UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

            This is a revision petition u/S 17 (I) (b) filed by the Revisionist /OP No. 2 challenging the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata –Unit-II in complaint case No.  273/2016 directing ex-parte hearing of the case.

            We had heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both the Revisionist/OP No.2  and Respondent No. 1  and perused the Revision Petition.  

            Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revisionist /OP No. 2 submitted that his authorized representative appeared before the Ld. District Forum on 14.07.2016 praying for time for filing W.V and accordingly, time was given with the direction to file the W.V on 28.07.2016.

            The said W.V. could not be filed by the Revisionist/OP No.2 on 28.07.2016, as stated ,  due to mis-posting of date of hearing in the diary of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of it and the Ld. District Forum , ignoring the request of the Revisionist OP No. 2 for further time for filing the W.V, passed the ex parte order. 

            The Ld. Advocate went on to submit further that the Revisionist /OP No. 2, in fact , got very little time of only 14 days from the date of the previous hearing for filing the W.V. 

            As submitted , there was enough merit in the case in its favour and its interest would be seriously prejudiced if the Revisionist  /OP No.2 is not allowed the opportunity to submit before the Ld. District Forum.

            Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 , on the contrary ,  submitted that the case had already been inordinately delayed and since it is at a mature stage , entertaining the revision at this stage would only make the disposal of the complaint delayed further.

            Moreover, as the Ld. Advocate continued , the statutory provisions for filing W.V. have not been fulfilled   by the Revisionist/OP No.2  in spite of sufficient chances being given . 

            Perused the papers on record . Para-5 of the Revision Petition indicated about the notice of the complaint case was served upon the Revisionist /OP-2 . There was no mention as to the date on which the said notice was served . In absence of the date of receipt of the notice by the Revisionist /OP No.2 , it was felt hardly possible to ascertain whether statutory period permissible for filing the W.V. was existing on the date on which the impugned order was passed .

            Further, it revealed from the notice dated 24.06.2016 that the Revisionist/OP No.2  was cautioned about the case being heard ex-parte unless it filed its reply showing cause against the charges leveled against it in the complaint petition on  14.07.2016.

            On 14.07.2016 , on its prayer seeking time , further time up to 28.07.2016 was allowed to  it . On 28.07.2016 the Revisionist /OP No. 2 again failed to file W.V. for reasons stated in the petition.

            The repeated failure reflected only the Respondent /OP No. 2’s indifference in taking step for filing W.V. in appropriate time which led to the passing of the impugned order. Allowing the Revision / Petition, as we feel in the given circumstances , would only stand in the way of early disposal of the case frustrating the spirit of the C.P. Act.  Accordingly, we find that it will not be prudent to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the revision petition stands dismissed . No order as to costs.