MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the Revisionist/O.P. challenging the order No. 6 dated 18.08.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit – I wherein, immediately after filing the evidence by the Complainant, Ld. District Forum passed an order fixing 02.11.2016 for hearing of the case and in the same order directed the parties to file evidence, questionnaire and reply, if any, meanwhile.

          The instant revision petition was heard ex parte against the Respondent/Complainant.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/O.P. was critical about the allegedly whimsical and arbitrary impugned order and submitted that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned order without application of mind.

          As further submitted, the impugned order was passed in utter violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also went contrary to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of J. J. Merchant where the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that the parties should complete the evidence by filing the affidavit-in-chief and questionnaire for cross-examination.

          The instant impugned order, as continued, deprived the Revisionist/O.P. from adducing evidence and cross-examination by the Complainant as the Ld. District Forum in the said order fixed straightway the hearing of argument without giving the O.P. any scope of observing those steps.

          As submitted, the interest of the Revisionist/O.P. will be seriously prejudiced if the Revisionist/O.P. is not given due opportunity as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to adduce evidence and to cross-examine the Respondent/Complainant.

          The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the revision petition to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record.  The impugned order appears to be confusing as the date of hearing of the case has been fixed after the evidence being filed by the Complainant.  The steps which are needed to be followed for completion of evidence so as to enable a proceeding reach the stage of final hearing, have not been followed as per procedure laid down in the Act.

          In view of the above, we find merit in the Revision Petition as the facts narrated above lead us to the conclusion that there is material irregularity in passing the impugned order.

          Above being the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that it will be prudent to direct the Ld. District Forum to observe meticulously the steps like filing of evidence, questionnaire and reply by both sides before fixing the date for final hearing of the case.

          Hence, ordered, that the revision petition be and the same is allowed setting aside the impugned order.  The Ld. District Forum is directed to allow both the parties to observe all steps to complete the evidence before fixing date for final hearing.  No order as to cost.  The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum positively on 18.05.2018.