The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has filed this Revision Petition against the Order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 22.07.2024, wherein his Appeal filed against the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi was dismissed on account of limitation as there was a delay of 97 days beyond the period of limitation. In the Complaint filed before the District Commission, the Petitioner is the Opposite Party No. 2 and by the Order dated 09.01.2024, he was proceeded ex-parte on account of his non-appearance since December, 2022. In the Order of the District Commission dated 14.05.2024, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 2 stated that he had filed three applications, one being an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, 1908 and accordingly, the matter was posted for hearing on this application on 16.07.2024. However, before this date, the Petitioner went in Appeal against this Order before the State Commission which, on grounds of limitation, rightly dismissed his Appeal. Thereafter, in the meantime, when the matter came up before the District Commission on 16.07.2024, in view of the submission of Counsel for the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 2 that he has filed an Appeal against the Order of 14.05.2024, the District Commission accordingly passed the Order stating that this application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, 1908 is infructuous. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel and perused the record carefully. We notice that the Petitioner has dragged on the matter from December, 2022 when he was not attending the District Commission and the District Commission rightly proceeded ex-parte and thereafter, he has filed an application for reconsideration under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, 1908, which was posted for hearing and before such hearing could take place, he went ahead to file the Appeal. The Appeal was rightly rejected on grounds of limitation. Now, he has come up to this Commission under Revision Petition. Such delay is making a travesty of justice in our considered opinion and heavy cost should be imposed on the Petitioner for frivolous filing of Appeals and Revision Petitions in order to cover up his absence from the District Commission from December, 2022. Being a medical negligence matter, it is important that the matter be decided judiciously taking into consideration all facts and to this extent, the Order of the District Commission, declaring ex-parte Order against the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 2, is set aside, subject to a cost of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 2 to the Respondent / Complainant. Considering that there has been a delay already caused of two years on account of the Petitioner, the District Commission is directed to expeditiously dispose of the case by taking the evidences, giving the time to each party of not more than six weeks for filing the same. Any delay by the Petitioner beyond six weeks in filing evidence should be viewed seriously by the District Commission. The Order of the State Commission dated 22.07.2024 and the Order of the District Commission dated 14.05.2024 are set aside. Parties to appear before the District Commission on 15.10.2024, the date already fixed. This Revision Petition stands disposed of. |
