Case is called out.

None is present on behalf of the revisionist.

According to office report dated 27.05.2022, steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties have not been taken by the revisionist.

Perusal of record reveals that this revision petition was admitted on 08.03.2022 and the revisionist was required to take steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties, within a week, but the revisionist did not take steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties.

None was present on behalf of the revisionist on the previous date also and steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties were also not taken by the revisionist.  However, one more opportunity was granted to the revisionist to take steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties.

Inspite of that, steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties have not been taken by the revisionist.

This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned interim order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 226 of 2021; Sh. Servesh Kumar, Advocate Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jwalapur (Rural), Haridwar and another, by which the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) were restrained from cutting the Eucalyptus and other trees standing on the land of opposite party No. 1 – complainant, forcefully and without valid permission.

The perusal of the impugned interim order passed by the District Commission shows that the District Commission has found a prima facie case in favour of opposite party No. 1 (original complainant) and has passed a restraining order for not cutting the trees standing on the land of the complainant.

We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order.  Even otherwise, the revisionist can very well approach the District Commission and file objections against the interim relief application moved by the complainant and get the same decided by the District Commission upon hearing both the parties.  This apart, the restraining order passed by the District Commission was effective till the next date fixed in the consumer complaint, i.e., 23.08.2021 and there is nothing on record having been brought by the revisionist to show as to whether the impugned interim order is effective till date or the same has been vacated.

In view of above, we do not find any force in this revision petition and the same being bereft of merit, warrants dismissal.

Revision Petition is dismissed.

Let the record be consigned.