RAMDHARI DEVNARAYAN MISHRA Vs. DILIP S GADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petition No.2359 of 2007 was filed in this Commission on 09.07.2007. Thereafter on 27.7.2007 this Commission accepted the application of the petitioner for interim stay of the operation of the impugned order. The same was stayed subject to deposit of the decreed amount including interest with the State Commission, within a period of two weeks.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 25.7.2011, the revision petitioner remained unrepresented, though notice had been issued from this Commission on 12.5.2011 itself. The Commission noted that the registered A.D. has been received back after service. Again when the matter was taken on 01.11.2011, the revision petitioner remained unrepresented. Taking into account the non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on two consecutive date of hearing this Commission dismissed the revision petition in default.

(3.) MISC. Application No.239 of 2012 has been filed against the above dismissal of the revision petition in default with the prayer to allow the application of the applicant/petitioner and restore the revision petition to its original number. This application is dated 23.3.2012, but was actually received in this Commission on 4.4.2012. Evidently, the application for restoration has been filed more than five months after the order of dismissal was passed by this Commission. Under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 the period of limitation prescribed for filing of such an application is 30 days. Hence, the application for restoration also carries an application for condonation of delay.