Umesh Chand Jain - Complainant(s)


Sajjad Hussain - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P.K. Garg

15 Jan 2015


Learned counsel for the applicant has moved an application for recalling the order dated 20.11.2013, thereby dismissing the appeal in default of the parties.  This application has been filed with a delay of 44 days before this Commission.

The grounds taken in the said application for condonatioin of delay is that the lawyer, who was previously engaged to do pairvi in the case, did not inform the appellant well in time with regard to the proceedings of the case.  When the applicant contacted his previous counsel Sh. Alok Pundir, then he was told that the appeal had already been dismissed in default of the parties vide order dated 20.11.2013.  The applicant, thereafter engaged the another lawyer in order to file the restoration application.

The order sheet indicates that the appellant appeared in person before the Commission on 29.06.2011, 28.09.2011 as well as on 11.04.2012, but thereafter the appellant did not appear before this Commission till the date when the appeal was dismissed in default of the parties, i.e. 20.11.2013.

This Commission passed a specific order on 06.09.2013 that in case if on the next date fixed the parties shall remain absent, then the matter shall be proceeded in accordance with law.  However, when the parties did not appear on the date fixed, then this Commission dismissed the appeal in default of the parties.

The Hon’ble National Commission in judgment reported in IV (2011) CPJ 666 (NC); B. Srinivasa Rao vs. Tafe Access Ltd. & Anr., has categorically observed that it is the National Commission, who has power to review an order made by it or reconsider and recall ex-parte order. There is no comparable provision under Section 17 of the Act defining jurisdiction of State Commission and action of appellant in seeking restoration of appeal by filing miscellaneous application before State Commission which had already dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, was misconceived.

The Hon’ble National Commission in another judgment reported in II (2012) CPJ 255 (NC); Nitin Mehta & Ors. Vs. Prashant Kumar Vijay Kumar Jain, has categorically observed that there is no provision under Act for recall or review of any order passed by State Commission.

In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Commission has no authority to recall or review its own order dated 20.11.2013. 

However, there is no sufficient cause explained in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application.  Accordingly, the application for recall of the order dated 20.11.2013 is hereby dismissed.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.