(Delivered on  02/09/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Petitioners /applicants have preferred the present  revision petitions  challenging the impugned order dated 10/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint  Case Nos. CC/18/510, CC/18/509 and CC/18/507 whereby application filed by the present  petitioner/applicant  for permission to carry out the amendment  in written statement  came to be rejected.

2.         Short facts leading  to the filing of the  revision petitions may be  stated brief as under:-

            Respondents/non applicants had filed consumer complaints  bearing Nos. CC/18/510, CC/18/509 and CC/18/507 before  the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur demanding  the refund of Rs. 51,000/- which was paid  by the complainants as booking  amount.  After  receiving  notice the present  petitioner/ applicant  appeared before the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and  sought  time to file reply to the complaint. Subsequently  the present  petitioner/ applicant  also filed an application  for amendment  to file  his written statement.  The  learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur passed an  order on 22/04/2019 allowing the amendment  application  subject to  cost of Rs. 3000/-. Applicant being aggrieved  by the said order dated 22/04/2019 filed revision  petitions bearing Nos. RP/19/28, RP/19/27 and RP/19/26 before the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur but the revision petitions filed by the   present revision petitioner/applicant  came be  dismissed.  Applicant  thereafter filed an application  on 27/11/2019 for permission to carry out  the amendment  by depositing  cost  imposed   on  applicant  but  the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur rejected the said  application  by passing an impugned order dated 10/12/2019. It is  against this  impugned order  dated 10/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur that the present petitioner/applicant  have come up in revision.

3.         I have heard Mr. Bharadwaj, learned advocate for the petitioner/applicant. It is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/applicant  that  though  the order came to be passed on 22/04/2019 by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur thereafter the present petitioner/applicant had filed  revision  petitions  bearing Nos. RP/19/28, RP/19/27 and RP/19/26 challenging the said order and therefore, the present petitioner   was exercising  the legal  remedy  by filing revision petitions and  there was no delay on the part of the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the time consumed  in preferring  the legal remedy by filing  revision petitions  cannot be taken  or construed   as delay in filing  the  applications  but this fact has not been  properly considered by  the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and  therefore, the  learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur erroneously rejected the  applications  on the ground   that there was  extreme delay in filing the applications.

4.         Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the respondent  has strongly rebutted this contention and has submitted that  findings given by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur cannot be termed as erroneous  at all as mere filing of the revision  petitions does  not at all operate  as stay to the impugned order  unless proper  stay is granted  to  order  under challenge.  On this aspect Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon three judgments  namely Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Mohd. Ali Khan, FA/331/202, date of order 09/02/2021 (NC), Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported  in IV(2006) CPJ 361 (NC) and  G.D.A. Vs. Balbirsingh, reported in AIR-2004-SC-448 but before  going to the citations  on which  reliance  has been placed  it would   be useful  to turn to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on 10/12/2019. As per order dated 22/04/2019 the application filed by the present  applicant  for amendment  had  come to be allowed and applicant  was directed to carry out the amendment within  10 days after imposing  cost of Rs. 3000/-. It is therefore, clear that  the applicant  was given opportunity  to file an application  for amendment  within  10 days   on  22/04/2019 but instead  of complying  with  order dated 22/04/2019 the present  applicant  filed the present  revision  petitions. It is also clear that there was  no stay in operation  to the earlier  order dated 22/04/2019. Perusal  of the impugned order dated 10/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur reveals that  the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur had elaborately  gone in to these aspects  as well as citations on which  reliance placed  by the learned advocate for the respondent  and after going  through the same had rejected the applications.  I have carefully gone through the citations on which  reliance  placed by the learned advocate for the respondent  including the citation in the case  of Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. National  Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported  in IV(2006) CPJ 361 NC which is  squarely applicable  to the facts of the  present  case. It is now  well  established that mere filing  of the appeal or petition does not at all  operate  as stay to the  impugned  order  under challenge  unless express stay  has been granted by the revisional or appellate  Forum.  Here also the  record shows that  though  the petitioner /applicant had filed  the revision  petition no stay was granted to the impugned  order dated 10/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and  so there was no question  of not complying  with the order passed. In any case  after going through  the impugned  order dated 22/04/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur I find that no error  has been committed  in passing the  impugned  order dated 10/12/2019 and same does not call for any interference. I therefore, proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Revision Petitions bearing Nos. RP/20/3, RP/20/4 and RP/20/5 are hereby  dismissed.

ii.          Copy of order be furnished  to both the parties free of cost.