Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/61/2023

D.Singaraj, Proprietor, Boomi Real Estate - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Shanthi , W/o K.Sekar - Opp.Party(s)

M/s S.John Peter

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL        … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.61 of 2023

 

(Against the Order dated 18.08.2022 passed in C.C. No.155/2021 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North))

 

                                                     Orders, dated:12.06.2023

D. Singaraj,

Proprietor,

Boomathi Real Estate,

No.7, Kaliamman Koil Street,

Koyembedu,

Chennai – 600 107.             … Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

 

- Versus –

S. Shanthi,

W/o. Mr. K. Sekar,

No.10, Jamunabai Street,

Sembium,

Chennai – 600 011.                         … Respondent /Complainant. 

 

For Revision Petitioner / Opposite party  : M/s. S. John Peter

 

For Respondent /Complainant                : M/s. R. Arumugam

  

This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (Open Court)

 

                This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 18.08.2022 passed by the DCDRC, Chennai (North) in C.C. No.155/2021, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party exparte for non-filing of written version inspite of expiry of the statutory period of 45 days and consequently, adjourned the case to 19.09.2022 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

2.     Heard both parties.

3.     The Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte for non-appearance before the District Commission inspite of expiry of the statutory period of 45 days.  When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party stated that on 18.08.2022, the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte for non-filing of version since the statutory period of filing version was over.  Further, he submitted that if the exparte order is passed the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.   Thus, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:18.08.2022.   When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the opposite party pending will further delay the matter.  Irrespective of the reason assigned by the opposite party for non-filing of written version, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this Revision Petition could be allowed by setting aside the exparte order passed by the District Commission so that, the appellant will have a chance to contest the case on merits.

4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 18.08.2022 passed in C.C. No.155/2021 by the DCDRC, Chennai (North) in setting the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte is set aside, and the Opposite Party shall file his Vakalath, Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.155/2021 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.

 

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT.

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/June/2023.