Neetu vs. SBI

Present:       Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for op No.1.

                   OP no.2 exparte.

                   Sh. Purshotam Phutela, learned counsel for complainant has suffered a statement in which he has stated that similar matter based on similar ground and similar reply is pending before the Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi and the parties are also similar before the Hon’ble National Commission, so the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission would be binding on the parties, so the present case be adjourned sine die till the final decision of the case filed before the Hon’ble National Commission. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has also stated at bar that he has no objection in case the present complaint is adjourned sine die till the decision of the connected case pending before the Hon’ble National Commission. In view of the statement of learned counsel for parties, the present complaint is adjourned sine die till the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. However, the parties are at liberty to get same revived as and when same is required by moving separate application after the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission. File be consigned to the record room.

Dt.6.9.2017                                                                   President

                             Member      Member                DCDRF, Sirsa.