K SIKKA Vs. K S SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum No.1 dated 11th September, 1992 by which his application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 16.4.92 has been dismissed.

(2.) The only contention of the appellant is that he did not receive notice for the hearing dated 23rd December 1991 and consequently, ex-parte proceedings should not have been taken against him on that date.

(3.) We have heard the appellant at a considerable length but do not find any substance in his submission. The complaint was fixed for 30th March,1991 and was adjourned to 5th September, 1991 in the presence of the parties as only one member was present and appointment of the President and a member had not been made by the Administration. On 5th September, 1991 the complainant appeared before the Forum, but opposite party did not appear. The Forum could proceed ex-parte against the opposite party on that date, but still it issued a fresh notice to him for 23rd December,1991. The notice was sent to him under registered cover which was not received back. In the circumstances it would be deemed that the notice was served upon the opposite party. The Forum had no other alternative on 23rd December,1991 but to proceed ex-parte against him. Normally it is seen that the opposite party wants to delay the decision of the complaint on one pretext or the other. This is a case of that type. It became the duty of the appellant to have made enquiry about the case after 5th September,1991, if he could not appear on that date, but ne did not do so.