Heard Mr. R.Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner.

                        Vide order dated 29-3-2022 passed by this Commission, matter was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the sole respondent.

                        The present revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.P. Case No. 13/2021 presently pending before the learned District Commission, Tinsukia. Notice was duly served on the present revision petitioner being the sole opposite party and was duly represented on 7-10-2021 by the authorized counsel Ms. D. Gogoi. On 7-10-2021, the learned counsel informed the Commission below that the documents along with complaint petition were not served on the revision petitioner/opposite party. In view of the same, on 7-10-2021, the learned Commission, Tinsukia, allowed the counsel appearing for the opposite party to receive the documents. Accordingly, vide order dated 7-10-2021, matter was fixed on 29-11-2021 for filing of written statement. On the next date so fixed, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/opposite party filed an application seeking further time in order to file written statement due to her illness. In support of her said contention, she placed documentary evidence before the Commission below about her illness. However, vide the impugned order dated 29-11-2021, the learned Commission below holding that the statutory period for filing written statement was over and directed the matter to proceed ex-parte against the present revision petitioner being opposite party in the complaint petition. Thereafter 4-1-2022 was fixed for ex-pare hearing.

                        The order dated 29-11-2021 passed by the learned District Commission, Tinsukia, is put under challenged. Mr. Goswami submits that the learned Commission below ought to have considered the grounds stated in the adjournment petition which was filed on the ground of illness of the conducting counsel for the opposite party which was very much supported by documentary evidence. Moreover, in view of the order dated 10-1-2022 passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the benefit therein ought to have been given to the present revision petitioner in order to file written statement, thereby expanding the time period of 45 days in filing the written statement. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami submits that the Commission below failed to apply its jurisdiction and in view of the same, the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

                        We have given due consideration to the submission made by Mr. Goswami. As referred hereinabove, on 7-10-2021, the counsel for the opposite party received the documents which was admittedly not sent to the present revision petitioner being the opposite party in the complaint case and as such, the complaint petition along with enclosures were received only on 7-10-2021. If we look into the provision of Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 It stipulates a period of thirty days for submitting the version of the opposite party  of the case or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days. Here in the present case admittedly the admitted complaint with the documents was served on 7-10-2021. Thereafter, the learned Commission below fixed the first date for written version of the opposite party on 29-11-2021. But as on that date the written version could not be filed, the learned Commission below ought to have fixed another date not beyond fifteen days from 29-11-2021 for filing of the written version. So under such circumstances, the learned Commission below ought not to have passed the order dated 29-11-2021, thereby closing the stage for filing of written version. In view of the same we are of the considered opinion that the learned Commission below failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the proper perspective. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 held that,

                        The order dated 23-3-2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 8-3-2021, 27-4-2021 and 23-9-2021, it is directed that the period from 15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.  

                        In the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is specifically stated that the period from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 would stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The said order of the Apex Court binds the learned Commission below. In view of the same, we allow this revision petition thereby setting-aside the order dated 29-11-2021 passed by the learned District Commission, Tinsukia, in C.P. Case No. 13/2021. Further, we direct the learned Commission below to allow the present revision petitioner to file written statement which as per submission of Mr. Goswami, the said written statement had already been placed on record before the learned Commission below and/or accept the written statement on record and proceed further as per law..

                    This Revision Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.