These four Revision Petitions, by the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints No.94/2011 and 331-333/2012, are directed against the common order dated 5.1.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeals No.A/16/2880 – 16/2883.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to grant further time to the Petitioner to make the requisite deposit, as directed by it vide orders dated 24.11.2016, on the ground that since extension of such time would amount to alteration/modification or setting aside of its aforesaid earlier order, it is not vested with the jurisdiction to grant further time for the said purpose.

Having regard to the fact that the applications filed by the Petitioner for extension of time were dismissed in limine without notice to the Complainants, issue of notice in these Petitions would cause unnecessary harassment to them, more so when the issue involved is trivial in nature, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice in these Petitions.  Accordingly, we have heard Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

Having perused the documents on record, including the copies of the Demand Drafts dated 22.12.2016, which were to be deposited with the District Forum on or before 5.1.2017, we are of the view that the Petitioner had in fact complied with the directions issued vide order dated 24.11.2016 but because of certain procedural formalities, the said drafts could not be deposited.

In view of the above, we allow all the Revision Petitions with a direction that if the requisite deposits, in terms of the interim order, are made by the Petitioner within two weeks from today, the interim order dated 24.11.2016 shall stand revived.

The Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

Order dasti.