Counsel for the parties present. 2. This order shall decide review petition filed by the respondent. He has invited our attention towards Section 22 C.P. Act and Rules 10 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. He has also invited our attention towards judgment given by the Apex Court by two-Judges Bench in Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank (2002)6 Supreme Court Cases 33. He is of the considered view that authority in J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002 CPJ 8 (SC) is not applicable in this case. -2- 3. All his arguments leave no impression upon me. Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank (Supra) is a judgment by two-Judges Bench, however, J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (Supra) is by three-Judges Bench and it appears that the later judgment was passed subsequently. 4. This Court has been passing such like orders in various cases. The Apex Court in the Unitech Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Goyal & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6042 of 2013 heard the counsel for the parties and accepted the request of the appellant that the case should be dismissed, as withdrawn. In that case too, this question was decided. 5. The Apex Court in another case reported in Kamal Prit Palta & Anr. Vs. Vikas Rana and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 4806-4807 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013, passed by this Commission in the same situation passed the following order: “Heard learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that the National Commission should not have declined to take the written statement of the appellant on record merely for the reason of delay. The National Commission has relied upon a judgment of three Judges of this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635. -3- The counsel submits that he has applied for review and that review application bearing No. Ra 216 of 2013 is also rejected. He, however, states that the appellant is prepared to deposit half of the amount of the claim which is filed by the respondent. In view of the death of the concerned patient, the amount claimed is one crore and sixty six lakhs. Since there are two respondent, we permit the appellants to deposit Rs. 83,00,000/- (Rupees eighty three lakhs) in the National Commission before the next date of hearing, which is 19.09.2013. The counsel states that after the amount is so deposited in the National Commission, he will apply to the National Commission for revival of the review application by filing another application for that purpose. It will be for the National Commission thereafter to consider whether the application should be entertained or not. It will be open to the National Commission to take appropriate decision on facts as well as in law”. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent is given an opportunity to follow the above cited Supreme Court Authority. 7. The complainant in this case has claimed Rs. 1,93,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he wants to take instructions from respondents and if they are ready to deposit half of the -4- amount in the National Commission within four weeks, they could file the written version. That amount will remain with the Commission till further orders. In that case permission is granted to file the written statement after the expiry of four weeks from today; otherwise right to file the same shall stand forfeited. 8. Case is fixed for final arguments on 26.11.2013. 9. At this stage after the end of this order, counsel for respondent has invited our attention that counsel for both the parties must file written arguments. This is a delaying tactic. He should have raised this argument at the very first time. Counsel for the complainant states that he does not wish to file written arguments. Request coming at the fag end of this case is rejected. Review petition stands disposed of. | 
