STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. HAR BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the petitioner-Bank who was opposite party before the District Forum. Complaint filed by the respondents-complainants was allowed by the District Forum as on four consecutive dates neither the Bank nor its Counsel appeared. State Commission, therefore, refused to interfere in the matter on appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed the same.

(2.) AGAINST the order of the State Commission refusing to interfere in the matter petitioner-Bank has come before us. We required from the Counsel for the petitioner to file affidavit showing as to how on four consecutive dates the Bank did not appear. No sufficient cause muchless to condone the delay was shown except to allege deficiency in service on the part of the lawyer. If that is so, Bank can well proceed against the lawyer who was deficient in service. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission to take a different view. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.