Heard Sh. Sohan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sh. Shyam Lal Kansal – opposite party, present in person before this Commission.

This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 115 of 2018; Sh. Shyam Lal Kansal Vs. Indira Rashtriya Chetna Evam Samajosthan Sangthan and another.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has rejected the application moved by the revisionist (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum), thereby seeking time for filing the written statement and it was further opined that vide order dated 30.11.2018, the District Forum has already closed the opportunity of the revisionist of filing the written statement.

Having considered the submissions raised before us, we feel that in the interest of justice, the revisionist need to be granted an opportunity of filing the written statement.  It is a settled law that as far as possible, the matter should be decided on merits and the opposite party – complainant may be compensated by way of costs.

Therefore, the revision petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/-, payable by the revisionist to the opposite party.  We, in our revisional jurisdiction,      suo-moto, set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the District Forum, thereby closing the opportunity of the revisionist of filing the written statement.  Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the District Forum, also stands set aside.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 13.05.2019.  The revisionist is directed to file the written statement before the District Forum on or before the date fixed positively.  The costs awarded herein shall be paid by the revisionist to the opposite party before the submission of the written statement.