PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  The case of the petitioner is that he was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Forum and he got the knowledge for the first time in January 2007.  We have requisitioned the file from the District Forum, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner was served on 03.06.2008.  The contention raised by the petitioner is totally wrong.  Sh. Raj Kumar Khushva, Regional In-charge and Power of Attorney has given the false affidavit.  Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, which was dismissed by order dated 21.3.2009 for want of jurisdiction.  It is surprising to note that the appeal was filed after delay of about one year on 11.03.2010.  The State Commission observed that the period between 21.05.2009 to 11.03.2010 was not explained.  It remarked that the lethargy of the appellant -Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Is apparent on the record.  Consequently, it dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.

          Counsel for the petitioner does not want to advance any further arguments.

          This is, therefore, clear that Raj Kumar Khushva, Regional In-charge has filed a false affidavit.  He has stated that the Petition filed by them is true and correct to his knowledge.

          At this stage, when we hinted that we are going to take action against the person, who has given the false affidavit, counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the Revision Petition.  Consequently, we allow him to withdraw the same subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within a period of three weeks, otherwise the matter will be re-opened.

          The Revision Petition stands disposed of.