Mr. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant Revision Petition has been filed by the revisionists/opposite parties challenging the order dated 10/04/2023 passed by the ld DCDRC, Kolkata Unit III in connection with MA being no. 177 of 2022 (arising out of CC case being no. 316 of 2022) wherein the ld Trial Commission has been pleased to reject the aforesaid MA application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the revisionists/opposite parties have filed the instant RP before this Commission.
2. The facts remains that the sole complainant viz. Sri Sandip Maity has instituted a consumer case being no. CC/316/2022 against the opposite parties before the ld Trial Commission praying for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in question, execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant alternatively praying for refund of deposited consideration amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakh) only along with interest  as well as compensation and cost. The total consideration amount has been fixed for Rs.34,87,000/- (thirty four lakh eighty seven thousand) only. Out of total consideration the complainant has paid the part consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of four cheques and the ops 3 and 5 have accepted the same and issued money receipts in the letter head of op no.1.
3. Now the ops 1 and 2 have raised vehement objection on the ground that the receipts amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- are manufactured and they have taken a plea that the ops 1 and 2 have not received the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the end of the complainant. Accordingly the ops 1 and 2 have filed a non-maintainable petition by way of filing aforesaid MA before the ld Trial Commission.
4. Having heard both parties and upon careful perusal of the materials available on the record the ld Trial Commission has pointed out that the matter would be properly adjudicated after adducing the evidence on both parties. Whether the aforesaid documents are manufactured or not that should be decided upon evidence adduced by the parties. Without evidence it cannot be decided properly and as such the ld Trial Commission has been pleased to reject the aforesaid MA application and to fix a date i.e. 15/06/2023 for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant.
5. The matter has been taken up for admission hearing along with hearing on the point of delay condonation .
6. We have heard the ld advocate appearing for the revisionists/opposite parties at length and in full.
7. We have considered the submissions of the ld advocate.
8. We have meticulously perused the materials available on the record.
9. The hearing on the point of admission along with delay condonation has been completed.
10. We have carefully perused the order being no-8 dated 10/04/2023. Whether the aforesaid documents are manufactured or not that should be decided upon the evidence adduced by both parties. At the initial stage it cannot be decided. At this juncture there is no hesitation to hold that the ld Trial commission in this respect has taken correct views.
11. Be it mentioned here that the consumer protection Act has been exclusively enacted for the benefit of the consumers and as such on the ground of non-maintainable petition filed by the ops, we cannot throw out the petition of complaint at the initial stage. Adducing of the evidence on the both sides are highly required in order to decide the matter relating to the disputes between the parties and to that effect the Trial Commission has already been pleased to provide the opportunities to the parties for adducing their evidence in order to reach the final decision.
12. At the time of hearing the ld advocate has submitted that no written version has been filed and in this regard we take the view that to fill up their lacuna they have filed the instant MA case before the concerned DCDRC which should not be acceptable in any manner whatsoever.
13. From the office record it reveals that there is clear delay of 62 days in filing the instant Revision Petition. We have perused the petition. Upon careful perusal of petition for delay condonation, it appears to us that there are no valid reasons in order to condone the aforesaid delay. It is the settled principle of law that each and every date of delay should be explained on the basis of valid reasons.
14. In pursuant to the whole observations we are constrained to hold that there is no such error, mistake, or any illegality in passing the order impugned dated 10/04/2023. On the other hand the revisionists/ops have also failed to explain the aforementioned delay in filing the aforesaid Revision Petition on valid and considerable reasons. Accordingly we dismiss the instant Revision Petition on the admission stage without any order as to costs.
15. At this juncture we affirm the order impugned dated 10/04/2023.
16. The Revision Petition stands disposed of as per above observations.
17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the ld Trial Commission for compliance and for taking necessary action.
18.  Note accordingly.