BY MR. JUSTICE P. K. DEKA, PRESIDENT

            Heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party. Both the learned counsel consented that the matter may be taken up for its disposal.

            This revision petition under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is filed against the order dated 27-08-2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as Commission) in C.C. Case No. 44/2015.

            The present petitioner is the opposite party in the said C.C. Case No. 44/2015 preferred by the present opposite party as complainant. Upon receipt of notice the present revision petitioner appeared through its counsel, filed its written version and thereafter the opposite party/complainant submitted evidence of the witnesses. The said witnesses were duly cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. The matter was fixed on 27-08-2019 before the learned Commission below. On the said date, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to take steps and as such the stage of filing evidence by the present revision petitioner as opposite party was closed whereafter, the matter was fixed on 24-10-2019 for filing of written argument by the parties. As such, this order is put under challenged in this revision petition.

            Mr. Saikia submits that as there was no default on the part of the present revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner while noting the date in his Diary, wrongly posted the same as 7-9-2019 instead of the date on which the matter was fixed for filing of evidence by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petitioner should not suffer due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the conducting counsel for the present revision petitioner before the learned Commission below.

            Mr. Phukan objected to the submission made by Mr. Saikia. It is submitted that in the impugned order itself it was observed by the learned Commission below that the present revision petitioner defaulted in submitting the evidence ‘on last several dates’. According to Mr. Phukan the said observation is sufficient enough to show the negligence on the part of the conducting counsel of the revision petitioner in the learned Commission below. As such, this revision petition is required to be dismissed.

            We have given due consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel. So far the reference of Mr. Phukan is concerned in the impugned order, we find that there was negligence on the part of the revision petitioner and the ground stated in this application that the counsel representing the revision petitioner in the learned Commission below wrongly posted 7-9-2019 instead of 27-08-2019 for filing of evidence in his Diary and only on 7-9-2019 when he visited the Commission below, he could realize the mistake on his part having gone through the impugned order. There was no delay on the part of the revision petitioner in obtaining the certified copy on 11-09-2019 in order to file the revision petition and as such, we hold that the ground stated in the application is a bonafide one. However, the said mistake on the part of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in conducting the case in the learned Commission below had caused prejudice to the opposite party/complainant and as such, we are constrained to impose a cost on the revision petitioner while setting aside the impugned order dated 27-08-2019 passed by the learned Commission below in C.C. Case No. 44/2015 for ends of justice.

            Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27-08-2019 is set-aside. The parties to this revision petition shall appear before the learned Commission below on 12-09-2022 and subject to deposit a cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the learned Commission below whereafter the said amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the complainant or their authorized counsel and the learned Commission below shall allow the revision petitioner to participate in the proceeding. On the date of appearance i.e. 12-09-2022, the revision petitioner shall file evidence on affidavit and the same shall be accepted.

            With the said observation and direction this revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.

            Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.