NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4543/2013

YOGI MAITHILI SHARAN MAHARAJ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDRA - Opp.Party(s)

MS. MEGHA MUKHERJEE

09 Dec 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4543 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 03/05/2013 in Appeal No. 133/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra)
WITH
IA/7446/2013
1. YOGI MAITHILI SHARAN MAHARAJ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SATGURU WADI, JUNA BABULKHEDA
NAGPUR
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. RAVINDRA
S/O. SH. SHANKARRAO WAGH, R/O. RAMESHWARI
NAGPUR
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Megha Mukerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent :
nemo

Dated : 09 Dec 2013
ORDER

Counsel for petitioner present.  Respondent is absent despite service.  The case was dismissed in default.  The impugned order runs as follows:

                             “None present for the appellant.  Respondent Ravindra Wagh present in person.  On last date none had appeared for the appellant and last chance was granted to the appellant.  The appeal be kept back for hearing and be recalled at 3.00 p.m.

                            Matter is recalled at 3.15 p.m.  None appeared for the appellant.  Respondent Ravindra Wagh is present.  His Adv. Mr. Satish Shrivas is also present.  Appellant’s Adv. K.A. Patil had appeared before this Commission on 06-09-2012 in response to the notice issued to the respondent.  However, thereafter when the appeal was adjourned to 12-12-2012, neither the appellant nor his Advocate remained present. Therefore, on that date last chance was granted to the appellant and appeal was adjourned till this date.  Today also none appeared for the appellant though the appeal was kept back till 3.00 p.m. today.

                            Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal.

                            Hence, appeal is dismissed in default.

                            No order as to cost.

                            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.”

The counsel for the appellant did not appear till 3-15 P.M.  It is stated that he was busy in the High Court.  Counsel for the appellant also did not appear on 12.12.2012. Counsel did not appear despite the last chance. 

Arguments heard.  In the interest of justice, we restore the appeal subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs, which be paid to the respondent through demand draft before the State Commission. 

Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.01.2014.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of.  Copy of the order be sent to other party as well.

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.