Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/14/181

ALLAHABAD BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM GOSWAMI - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    REVISION PETITION NO. 181 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 15.09.2014 passed in C.C.No.1249/2010 by the District Forum, Indore)

 

ALLAHABAD BANK & ANR.                                                                                    …          PETITIONERS

 

Versus

                 

PREM GOSWAMI & ORS.                                                                                        …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR.  MRS MONIKA MALIK                           :      MEMBER               

 

                                      O R D E R

14.03.2019

 

          Shri Manoj Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            None for the respondent no.1 and 2.

            Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

                       

                        Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.1249/2010 whereby the Forum has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/opposite party no.1 and 2 seeking amendment in the written statement, the petitioners have filed this revision.

3.                     The Forum while rejecting the aforesaid application had observed that application for amendment in written statement was made belatedly and without assigning any reason for delay. The Forum has also observed that the pleadings which are sought to be brought on record by amendment are already taken in the written statement.   

4.                     So far as the impleadment of postal department the same cannot be said to be necessary party.

5.                    As such we find no infirmity in the impugned order. 

6.                     The revision petition fails and is dismissed. 

7.                     It is expected from the Forum to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.                                               

 

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)            (Dr. Monika Malik)             

                     President                                         Member