Petitioner, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, after taking over the assets of M/s.Bajrang Industries (petitioner herein), put the land and building for sale by way of auction on ‘as is where is’ basis.  Respondent/complainant purchased the land and building of M/s.Bajrang Industries in auction.  Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that the petitioner had failed to remove the existing machinery of M/s.Bajrang Indistries due to which he could not carry out his business by placing his machinery and had to spend a sizeable amount for the security of the said machinery.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.30,950/- towards compensation along with costs of Rs.550/- within three months failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission disposed of the appeal without going into merits of the dispute by observing thus :

“Since the case is very old one, and, therefore, this Commission does not want to go on the merits of the case and for which both the counsel agree and the learned counsel for the appellant makes a request that the rate of interest be reduced to 6% p.a. in place of 18% p.a., for which learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.”

          From the reading of the order of the State Commission, it appears that the counsel for the petitioner did not contest the appeal on merits. 

Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition contending that the counsel for the petitioner had not confined his submission to the reduction of the rate of interest only but had emphatically submitted that the appeal be decided on merits as the opposite party was not a consumer and the District Forum had committed a grave illegality in accepting the complaint.  In support of the aforesaid averment, petitioner filed an affidavit of Sh.Satish Chand Mittal, Advocate, who had appeared for it before the State Commission.  Respondent has not filed any reply to the affidavit filed by the petitioner.  Since the respondent has not controverted the affidavit filed by Shri S.C. Mittal, i.e., the counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that he had not confined his arguments to the reduction of the rate of interest only, we allow this Revision Petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case back to the State Commission to decide the same afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to counsel for both the parties.

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 7.2.2011.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.