GOEL S. PAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking restoration of the revision petition. It was dismissed in default on 9.1.2001. Ground for restoration is that the petitioner had some important case for final arguments in the District Court, Nadied in the State of Gujarat. Petitioner filed the application for restoration on 26.4.2001. He had no explained as to why he took more than 31/2 months to move this application for restoration of his petition which was dismissed on 9.1.201. On this application for restoration notice was issued to him on 14.5.2001 for 11.7.2001. For this date he again sent a request for adjournment stating that he was busy before a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and sought adjournment. In the Consumer Court adjournment cannot be granted as a matter of course. The matter is to decided within a certain time schedule. On one date of hearing petitioner was busy in the District court at Gujarat and on the second date he was busy in the court in Delhi.

(2.) Petitioner's complaint was dismissed by the District Forum and appeal to the State Commission also met the same fate. We do not think it is a fit case for us to restore this revision petition.

(3.) Application for restoration is, therefore, dismissed.