Order no. 4

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party is present.

The Misc. Application dated 11.01.2024 is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/ petitioner prays for modification and / or recalling the order dated 28.08.2023 and to allow the complainant to file supplementary affidavit in chief in CC/186/2020.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/petitioner submits that the complainant was allowed to file supplementary evidence on recall after closing of the evidence of the opposite party no.1 but the Ld. Advocate for the complainant could not submit  supplementary evidence before the commission on 28.07.2023 due to his illness and the Hon’ble Commission had been pleased to fix the case for filing BNA and argument. If the order dated 28.08.2023 is not recalled or modified and the complainant is not allowed to file supplementary on recall, he will be suffer irreparable loss.

On perusal of the record we find that vide order no.2 dated 13.07.2023 passed in MA/183/2023 opportunity had been given to the complainant to adduce further evidence on recall in CC/186/2020 after closing of the evidence of opposite party no.1. Thereafter, the evidence of opposite party no.1 was closed on 28.08.2023. On that date neither the complainant nor his advocate found present on calls. No prayer was made on behalf of the complainant or by the complainant himself for adjournment to file evidence on recall.

So, as both sides evidence are already on record, the case was fixed on 05.12.2023 for submitting brief notes of argument.

On 05.12.2023, on the prayer of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant the case was adjourned and the next date was fixed on 19.04.2024 for submitting brief notes of argument.

Thereafter, on 11.01.2024 the complainant has filed the instant Misc. Application on the prayer of recalling and / or modification of order dated 28.08.2023.

In course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the complainant refers ‘Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another –Vs- Raghu Raj’ wherein the Hon’le Apex Court observed that in absence of council for the appellant, the appeal can be dismissed but cannot be disposed of on merit.

In this case the complaint application is yet to be disposed of on merit on the basis of evidence of both the parties which is already in the record.

We do not find any error in order no.20 dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Commission. Moreover, the instant application has been filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the order.

The Misc. Application lacks merit and liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

O R D R E D

that the Misc. Application be and the same is dismissed without cost.