BY Mr. Justice  P.K. Deka, President,

                        Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party is present. On 10-08-2022 it was ordered that due to absence of the counsel for the revision petitioner matter could not be taken up for its disposal thought LCR was received by the Registry. Accordingly recording as the last chance, today the matter was fixed for hearing. As the counsel for the revision petitioner is absent, as such, this matter is taken up today for its disposal considering the same is pending since the year, 2018 and as the LCR is tagged with the case record, matter could not be proceeded in the learned Commission below for its disposal.

                        This revision petition being filed under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission invoking the jurisdiction of the said provision is required to examine as to whether the learned Commission below exercised its jurisdiction as stipulated under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                        The present revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.D. Case No. 13/2014 pending before the learned Commission below, Dhubri. The order dated 08-08-2018 is put under challenge whereby the petition filed by the present revision petitioner through his counsel dated 31-07-2018 seeking leave of the Commission below to allow the present revision petitioner (opposite party) to examine one Sri Sidhartha Sankar Roy, Postal Agent of Gauripur Sub-Post Office and Gauripur SPM to prove some material documents. The learned Commission below passed the impugned order after considering the written objection filed by the present opposite party being the complainant.

                        After admitting this revision petition, the LCR was called for which is tagged with the case record. On perusal of the record it is seen that the matter is pending for its disposal at the stage of argument. The learned Commission below in the impugned order exercised its jurisdiction against granting the leave to the present petitioner for adducing further witness on the ground that several adjournments were taken by the opposite party at the stage of evidence in defence. As there were no steps on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/opposite party, as such, the said complaint case was fixed for argument. On the date of argument i.e. 31-7-2018, the said petition was filed seeking leave of the Commission for allowing to adduce further evidence by the petitioner/opposite party. While rejecting the said application, the learned Commission below referred to various adjournments and finally holding that that matter is pending since the year, 2014, the cause shown in the petition dated 31-7-2018 were totally new plea and accordingly the petition was rejected.

                        We have perused the record and the various orders passed by the learned Commission below and found that vide order dated 25-4-2017, the learned Commission below recorded that the opposite party had already examined two witnesses and the case was pending re-examination of DW 2 and cross-examination of DW 3 and DW 4. 23-05-2017 was fixed for re-examination of DW 2 and cross-examination of DW 3 and DW 4. On 23-5-2017 though the matter was posted for re-examination of DW 2, however, the opposite party filed further evidence on affidavit of other witnesses. Again 25-07-2017 was fixed for cross-examination of witnesses of the opposite party. On 25-07-2017 D.W. 4 was duly cross-examined and discharged, whereafter, 5-9-2017 was fixed for cross-examination of the remaining witnesses of the opposite parties. On 5-9-2017, the matter stood adjourned on the prayer made by the learned Govt. Pleader. 25-10-2017 was fixed for cross-examination of witnesses of the opposite parties wherein the learned counsel for the opposite parties prayed for adjournment which was granted fixing 28-11-2017 for cross-examination. Adjournment was again sought for on 28-11-2017 and the matter was fixed for cross-examination of DW 2 on 10-01-2018. On the next date so fixed due to absence of witnesses cost of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on the opposite parties and adjournment was granted fixing 13-02-2018 for cross-examination of DW 2. On 13-02-2018, the learned President was out of station and 21-3-2018 was fixed for cross-examination of DW 2. On 21-3-2018, the present petitioner filed an application for expunging the evidence in chief of one witness Sri Kamal Sarma which was accordingly expunged after cross-examining of DW 2 was over. Then the matter was fixed for argument on 09-05-2018 and after adjournment on various dates, finally 31-07-2018 was fixed for further hearing on which date the said petition seeking for adducing further witness by the opposite party was filed which was finally disallowed by the impugned order in the revision petition.

                   From perusal of the record we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner was negligent in conducting the proceeding and application seeking for adduction of further witness which the learned Commission below rightly disallowed. We are of the view that the matter is pending since the year, 2014 and the intend of the frammer of the Act to dispose of the proceeding at the earliest i.e. within six months from the date of admission of complaint as stipulated under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The written statement by the opposite parties are required to file within the maximum period of 45 days from the date of admission of the complaint. As held by learned Commission below that the matter is pending since the year, 2014, the District Commission has rightly exercised the jurisdiction thereby rejecting the application inasmuch as, the said Act of 1986 specifically stipulates under Section 13(3) that no proceeding complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principle of natural justice have not been complied with. In view of the said mandate to the Commission, we find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.

                        Send back the LCR. The learned Commission below on receipt of LCR shall issue notice to the parties and dispose of the matter within two months from the date of appearance of the parties before the learned Commission below. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.