PER JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR 1. This revision petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission inasmuch as the main contention of the revision petitioners is that the order impugned was rendered ex-parte without hearing the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that an adjournment application was moved by the designated senior counsel. 2. The petitioner subsequently sought recalling of the order impugned but the State Commission rejected that application too, on the ground that the State Commission has no power to recall its own order. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the relevant material on record, it does appear that the matter was being adjourned from time to time and the State Commission noticed that it was being protracted by the petitioners. It is true that the petitioners were unjustified in seeking adjournments after adjournments. It, however, appears that when the last application was moved on 26.03.2010, the ground for adjournment was that the uncle of the designated senior counsel, who was the arguing counsel, had died and, therefore, he was in personal difficulty. He had also intimated about his difficulty to the counsel for the other side. It appears that the adjournment application was rejected on the ground that it was unsupported by an affidavit. It also appears that the respondent had objected for the adjournment. Be it may, as it is, when the counsel sought adjournment due to bereavement in the family, ordinarily, such ground should have been considered as sufficient one to adjourn the matter. Normally, no Advocate or counsel would put up false story regarding death of a close relative, like uncle, nor such a ground was found to be untrue. The only ground on which the application was rejected was that the application was unsupported by any affidavit. The statement of counsel could not be lightly brushed aside. The objection taken by the respondent was also not on the ground that any false statement was made in the adjournment application but it was on the ground that frequent adjournments were sought and the appeal was being protracted. Considering these aspects, we are of the opinion that one opportunity should have been granted to the revision petitioners in order to do proper justice and observe the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Vs. Jaspal Singh & Ors. –(2009) 7 SCC 330. He would submit that both the orders of the fora below are well founded. We do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the matter inasmuch as the appeal deserves a fresh hearing and decision on the merits. 4. For the reasons stated herein above, we deem it proper to allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order subject to condition that the petitioners will deposit amount of Rs.1.00 lakh with the State Commission as a pre-condition for restoration of the appeal and the same shall be paid to the respondent without taking any security from him. The amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to be deposited will be independent of any other payment or deposit made by the petitioner and will be treated as adhoc payment without any finding of facts. In case any further adjournment is sought by the petitioners, the State Commission shall not grant more than two adjournments after the appeal is restored and shall make endeavour to dispose of the appeal, within six months after the first date of appearance. The parties to appear before the State Commission on 29.08.2011 and no further notice will be necessary to be served on them of the date of appearance. In case, any third application is moved for adjournment, the State Commission will be at liberty either to reject it or impose heavy cost of not less than Rs. 25,000/-. The revision petition is accordingly, disposed of in above terms. |
