PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. This case was filed before the State Commission in April 2013. Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties for 07.06.2013. The OPs/petitioners were directed to file the written statement within a month from 07.06.2013 and the case was adjourned to 23.07.2013. On 23.07.2013, the reply was not filed. Further direction was given to file the written statement within a fortnight. The case was fixed for 07.08.2013. On 07.08.2013 nobody appeared for the appellant. Reply was not filed as required vide the previous orders and as per the statutory provisions, the right to file the written statement was forfeited. The case was fixed for evidence of the complainant on 06.09.2013. 2. Counsel for the petitioner prays that there is a delay of one day only. It is stated that on 07.08.2013, an application seeking permission to file written statement of the OPs 1 & 2 was filed because it was barred by time, therefore, the State Commission did not allow it. This application was decided vide order passed on 19.08.2013, which runs as follows:- “Head. This application by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is for permission of this Commission to place on record the written reply. The request for extending the time for filing the reply was dis-allowed vide order dated 07.08.2013. The giving of permission to place on record the written reply will tantamount to the review of that order and such a power is not vested in this Commission under the Act. Dismissed. Put up the file on 6.9.2013, the date already fixed.” 2. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that there was delay of only one day and this should have been condoned. To our mind the delay of one day has extended till today. The case already stands delayed by more than 6 months. We are not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody can deviate from the provisions of law. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the judgment of Topline Shoes Ltd., Vs. Corporation Bank, (2002) 6 SCC 33 & Kailash Vs. Nanku 2005 (4) SCC 46 and in the case of “Noor Mohammed Versus Jethanand and Another”. There is lot of controversy between the judgements. There is another judgment in the case of Dr. J. J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III(2002) CPJ 8 (SC). In this context, the matter has already been sent to the larger Bench. 4. However, in the interest of justice and since there is only one-day delay, therefore, the same is condoned subject to various conditions. The respondent had applied for flat in the year 2009 and counsel for the respondent submits that he has been harassed and the flat has been given to him recently during the pendency of the case which is defective one. Other issues have not been decided. 5. However, we grant time to place the written statement before the State Commission subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The said amount be paid to the respondent directly through demand draft. It is further directed that the parties will appear before the State Commission on 14.03.2014. The State Commission will decide the case after satisfying that the above said costs stand paid to the respondent. The written statement has already been filed. Same be taken on record. The State Commission will decide the case expeditiously and will not take more than three months from 14.03.2014 onwards. 7. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
