19.04.2022

ORDER

By Sri Ravishankar, Judicial Member

Heard from both counsels.  Advocate for Revision Petitioner submits that  after service of notice by the District Commission, the advocate who represents the Opposite Party has undertaken to file vakalath on the next date of hearing and the case was posted for filing of vakalath and version to 17.09.2016.  On that date, they were not able to file vakalath and application for permission to file version as because the Head Office of the Company is located at Pune and due to lack of communication, he was not able to receive the vakalath and version.  Hence, subsequently they filed an application on 08.11.2016 permit them to file vakalath and version, but, the said application was rejected by the District Commission as the stipulated time of 45 days was lapsed and the version was taken as NIL.  The Petitioner further submits that they have got a good case to defend themselves against the allegations made against this Opposite Party.

2.  Considering the merits of the case and in the interest of justice and equity, the order of dismissal passed by the District Commission on IA is hereby set aside and the Opposite Party is directed to file vakalath and version.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be payable to the complainant before the District Commission.  We noticed that the petitioner/Opposite Party has already filed version and it is on record.  The District Commission is directed to take up the version on record and provide an opportunity to file affidavit evidence with documents and dispose of the matter on merits expeditiously. 

                                                             Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

                                                 (Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                         (Ravishankar)       

                                                            Member                                    Judicial Member