Birbal Vs. Palm Ford

Present:       Sh.J.K.Bidla, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh.Sameer Gambhir Advocate for opposite party No.2.

                   Ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement that due to some technical defect in the complaint, he does not want to proceed with the present complaint and as such has stated to withdraw the same and has sought permission to file the case afresh in appropriate Court of law and benefit u/s 14(2) is also sought.

                   In view of the above statement, present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. The complainant is at liberty to file the case afresh in appropriate Court of law. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of delay under section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which the proceedings remained pending before this Consumer Forum. Original documents, if any, placed on record by the complainant be returned and photocopy of the same be placed on record.

                   File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Member                         Member                         President/04.06.2019.