Order No.1 contd….           11/10/2022

Misc. Application filed by the opposite party U/S 40 of C.P. Act, 2019 is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the opposite party as well as Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant raised strong objection against the prayer of the opposite party.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party submits that the Complaint Case No.CC/97/2022 was fixed on 27/07/2022. Though notice was served upon the opposite party but Ld. Advocate could not appear on 27/07/2022 as he was suffering from illness and was bed ridden and the Complaint Case No. CC/97/2022 was fixed for exparte hearing. It was prayed to recall the order dated 27.07.2022.

On perusal of the Misc. Application I find the same has been signed by one Anupam Halder who claimed to be authorized signatory working as Sr. Manager (Legal) under the opposite party. No Vakalatnama has been filed by the opposite party. Neither Mr. Anupam Halder signed the application under his designated official seal. No document has been filed in proof that Mr. Anupam Halder has been authorised to take steps on behalf of the opposite party.

On further perusal of the record of CC/97/2022 I find notice was served upon the opposite party on 22/06/2022 but opposite party did not care to appear in the case neither submit any prayer to file written version.

Moreover, this application U/S 40 of C.P. Act,2019 is barred by limitation. I do not find any error in order no.4 dated 27/07/2022 passed in CC/97/2022.

So, the Misc. Application U/S 40 of C.P. Act,2019 stands dismissed on contest without cost.