No. 3/22.06.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Heard Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist.  None appears for the O.P.  The unserved envelope shows a notice was refused by the O.P. and, therefore, notice was treated as duly served.    We have also taken into consideration the copy of the order No. 30 dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Forum below wherein on behalf of the Complainant communication was made to the Forum as regards pendency of the present revision disclosing even the case number as also the date of admission hearing before the State Commission.  We find that the O.P. was though present on the said date before the Forum as recorded in the said order, none has entered appearance for O.P. at any stage in the present proceeding.  Therefore, it seems the O.P. has intentionally kept himself absent in the proceeding.  As the original proceeding was filed in the year 2006 this conduct of the O.P. of not appearing in the proceeding in spite of notice and in spite of the knowledge about the proceeding, does not speak good conduct of the O.P.

The impugned order in the present revision case shows that the Forum below has allowed the O.P. to file the questionnaire on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-.  We have considered the facts and circumstances available from the records.  We find that the Forum has also considered that at the appropriate time the O.P. did not exercise his statutory right of filing questionnaire for cross-examination of the Complainant.  Even on the date the said order was passed the O.P. was not ready with the questionnaire which could have shown seriousness on the part of the O.P.  We also find from the impugned order that the matter was already heard in part on 25.01.2010 and it was fixed for further hearing on 18.03.2010 when the said impugned order was passed allowing the O.P. to file questionnaire.  It appears to us by allowing the said belated prayer of the O.P. the Forum has not considered that the proceeding will be delayed thereafter as O.P. had already filed its evidence on Affidavit.  The Complainant has not exercised his right to file further evidence depending on the development on the basis of such questionnaire.  In any part heard matter in appropriate circumstance such prayer can be allowed but neither the application from the O.P. nor from the impugned order we find any ground whatsoever on which such belated prayer could be allowed.  Cost does not cure all the prejudices the other side suffers by reason of such conduct of the O.P.  In view of the aforesaid finding and in view of the fact that we do not find any ground even before us shown by the O.P. which justifies allowing such prayer, the impugned order is hereby set aside.  Forum will dispose the matter from the stage of further hearing as was earlier directed by the Forum itself.  Revision is thus allowed.  There will be no order as to cost.  As the proceeding is old one of 2006, we request the Forum to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.