RANGA KRISHNA AND COMPANY Vs. VUDARI YADAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the face of it we do not find any ground for interfering with the docket order which is as follows :

(2.) IT is interesting to note that in the affidavit dated 20.12.1998 the petitioner des not state whether the version/counter was made ready after 19.11.1998 and whether he presented the same before the District Forum on any of the dates to which the matter was adjourned or at any other time. He has also not presented a copy of the version/counter, if any got readied, before us. In view of the statutory duty cast on Tribunals under the Act to dispose of the complaints filed before them expeditiously with a minimum number of adjournments, it is incumbent on the opposite parties to present their versions/ counters immediately on the dates to which the matter is first posted for appearance or at least on the next date to which the matter is adjourned for that purpose. The opposite parties cannot take inordinate time for filing their versions/counters and seek adjournment after adjournment for that purpose. Setting an opposite party ex -parte is only to enable the District Forum to proceed with the matter even in the absence of the opposite party. Even if an opposite party is set ex -parte, it des not preclude the District Forum from receiving the version/counter if immediately thereafter it is filed with a proper reasonable explanation for not being able to file it within the time allowed or acceptable. It is also open to the District FORA to impose costs depending upon the attitude and conduct of the opposite party (parties) in filing the version / counter. This would be a reasonable approach especially when, after setting the opposite party/parties ex -parte, there is no further progress in the hearing of the C.D. If, after the opposite party/parties are set ex -parte, evidence of the complainant/complainants is taken and the matter is posted for arguments/ judgment then different considerations may arise '' even then, a counter may be received in order to comply with the requirements of principles of natural justice and fair play, if there was no recalcitrant or obdurate attitude displayed by the opposite party. It all depends on the facts of each case. We are making these observations to indicate the approach that may be adopted in matters like this depending on the facts of each case. There cannot be a hard and fast rule. In dealing with this aspect of the matter the District FORA will have to keep in view the clear mandate of the Act that expeditious disposal of the complaints has to be taken as the preponderant guiding factor at the same time keeping in view the principles of fair play and natural justice. As we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order sought to be questioned before us, this R.P. is therefore dismissed.