Order No: 4 Date:01/08/2023
Today is fixed for passing order relating to this review application filed U/S. 40 of the C. P. Act, 2019 by the Reviewer/O. P. No. 3 in CC/235/2021 praying to modify the Order No. 12, dated 7/11/2022, Order No. 12, dated 07/12/2022 and Order No. 14, dated 21/12/2022, of this Commission. It is stated in the application that the Reviewer/OP-3 have not been served with any notice by this Commission and for this reason he had no knowledge about the present complaint case. He has not appointed any lawyer to attend the case in his favour and he gather knowledge about this case from the project site some time before. Thereafter upon inspection he came to know that an ex parte order has been passed against him in this case. Hence he prayed for modification of the above-mentioned orders of this Commission so that he can take part in the complaint case.
Section 40 of the C. P. Act, 2019 says: “40. The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”
In the light of this Section we now begin our discussion. In Order No. – 12, dated 07/11/2022 it is written as: “Complainant file hazira. Ops enter appearance today by filing vokalatnama and also files a petition praying for time for filing w. v. Fix 07/12/2022 for filing w. v. by Ops.” It is found in the record that a petition praying for time for filing w. v. has been filed on behalf of the Ops along with a vokalatnama with signature of one Mr. Susanta Naskar, Ld. advocate, F-929/2005 in favour of (1) Manoj Kr. Gupta, (ii) Suraj Sing & (iii) M/s. Sujal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Bur on careful scrutiny it reveals that this vokalatnama is signed by OP No. 2 as Director of the OP No. 1 company. So, this vokalatnama is found defective and accordingly the Order No. – 12 seems to have an apparent error which needs to be rectified. Moreover, no postal track report was filed by the complainants wherefrom we could ascertain whether service of notice upon all the Ops were satisfactory or not.
Order No. – 13 states as: “Complainant files hazira. OPs are absent without any step and did not file w. v. Fix 21/12/2022 for filing w. v. of Ops as last chance.” Case record supports the statement in this order as true and no modification is need against this order also.
Order No. – 14 staes as: “Complainant files hazira. OP Nos. 1 & 2 file hazira alongwith w. v. copy served. Op no. 3 is absent without any step and did not file w. v. statutory period for filing w. v. of Op no. 3 is over. Thus, case do proceed ex-parte against Op no. 3.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 submit through w. v. filed on behalf of OP no. 1 & 2 but his clients very much interested –to dispose the matter by taking proper steps by making registration etc. whatsoever subject to payment of balance consideration.
Fix 16/01/2023 for evidence on affidavit by complainant.” Case records support each and every statement of this order. It is seen that the same advocate, Mr. Susanta Naskar has signed the w. v. who filed the vokalatnama on behalf of the all Ops.
Hence, we are of the view that Order No. 12, dated 07/11/2022 needs to be rectified and so an opportunity can be given to the Reviewer/OP No. 3 to file written version on his behalf so that proper and effective evaluation in this case can be made while disposing the complaint case being no. CC/235/2021.
So, RA/10/2023 be the same and is allowed after consideration of the case records. Reviewer/OP No. 3 is allowed to file his written version within the stipulated time period under the Act from the date of this order. Prayer for condolence of delay in filing the application is considered and allowed for the ends of justice.
The review application being no. RA/10/2023 is hereby disposed off.
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
