MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an application for restoration of the appeal, dismissed in default, to its original number by recalling order dated February 13, 2001, passed by this Commission, the relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder : "present : for the Appellant : None. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate. xxx xxx none is present for the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in default. "

(2.) It has been averred in the application for restoration that the date in the above-noted case was fixed as 5.10.2000. The applicant, as averred in the application, sent a telegram on 4.10.2000 requesting the Hon'ble Commission to adjourn the case as the applicant-appellant was not able to attend the Court on 5.10.2000. It is then stated that, thereafter, the applicant-appellant kept waiting for the next date in the appeal but no intimation was received by him from the Commission. Surprisingly, on 4.9.2001 the applicant-appellant received a show cause notice dated 23.8.2001 under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act to appear and file reply as to why proceedings be not taken against him for issuance of warrants of arrest as the appeal filed by the applicant had been dismissed in default vide order dated 13.2.2001 (restoration of which has been called for ). It is further stated in the application that non-appearance of the applicant-appellant on 13.2.2001 was not intentional. The applicant-appellant was under the bona fide impression that whenever the next date will be fixed, he will receive an intimation from the Hon'ble Commission. It is on this basis that a prayer has been made that this application may be allowed and the order dated 13.2.2001 be recalled and the main appeal be restored to its original number.

(3.) Notice on the application was issued to the respondents and Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate has appeared and has filed reply on behalf of the respondents.