Today is fixed for hearing of the M.A. Case which has been cropped up on the basis of the application filed by applicant Bank under order 9 rule 13 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C.

Ld. Advocates of both sides are found ready.  Op side is contesting this M.A. case by filing w/o.

It is the main point of the contention and argument of the applicant side regarding the account of illness of the Ld. Advocate. 

The applicant bank insurance co. has failed to contest the C.C. NO. 188/2017.

 On the other hand, Op complainant side in course of hearing of adopting the plea that this case is not maintainable and delay has been explained but as per argument of the Ld. Advocate of Op complainant side in the Act of 1986 there is no provisions of review.

On the back ground of the above noted points of contention and argument highlighted by both sides it appears that this MA Case has been filed after a long delay of 180 days.   But facts remain that the said delay has not been properly explained by the applicant side on day to day basis which is the main criteria of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

In view of this position it is crystal clear that this M.A. Case is barred by limitation. Moreover all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in the District Forum or District Commission.

Thus the provision under order 9 rule 13 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. is not applicable in the District Commission.

Considering all the abovenoted facts the M.A. case no. 11/2019 is dismissed on contest with no order as to cost.