Order no.2               

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner/opposite party is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is also present.

The Misc. Application dated 30.11.2022 is taken up for hearing along with its objection filed by the complainant today.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner/opposite party prays for recalling of order dated 16.08.2022 and 29.09.2022 on the grounds that after closing evidence of both parties and filing of BNA, the complainant has filed further evidence  in the form of supplementary affidavit in chief and the opposite party has been directed to submit questionnaire. So, the order dated 16.08.2022 and 29.09.2022 should be recalled. On perusal of complaint case no. CC/11/2018, I find that vide order no. 38 dated 16.08.2022 on submission of both the parties the commission allowed to submit further evidence of the relied upon documents of the parties in the form of supplementary affidavit in chief. Thereafter, on 29.09.2022 the complainant files supplementary evidence with original documents which have been marked exhibit. On the same date Ld. Advocate for the opposite party by filing a petition prayed for adjournment. Therefore, 30.11.2022 was fixed for filing questionnaire by the opposite party against the supplementary evidence of the complainant. Therefore it is apparent on the face of the record that both the parties on 16.08.2022 prayed for adducing further evidence in this case which was allowed by the commission. Moreover, the application for review/recalling order dated 16.08.2022 and 29.09.2022 is barred by limitation in view of section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Therefore, the Misc. Application dated 30.11.2022 is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Thus the MA case is disposed of.