HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. BALKRISHAN SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was delay of 305 days in filing the revision petition before the State Commission for which the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission.

(2.) The complaint was filed against Five Opposite Parties, where HDFC/Petitioner was arrayed as OP No.4 and Allahabad Bank, OP5, was proceeded against ex-parte, on 30.01.2013. Allahabad Bank/OP5 was permitted to join the proceedings on 10.07.2013. The ex-parte order was set aside by the District Forum on 22.07.2013 and OP 5 was permitted to file reply/evidence. However, OP5 did not file reply on three consecutive hearings.

(3.) The Petitioner/HDFC/OP4, filed an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings on 04.10.2013. It is also explained that the Bank which had earlier engaged a counsel had not properly represented and it had to appoint another counsel on 04.10.2013. As a matter of fact, the District Forum had issued notice for 30.01.2013. Service of the petitioner is admitted that he was served for 30.01.2013, however, due to communication gap, it was thought that some counsel must have been engaged by the controlling officer, but, inadvertently, due to communication gap, no counsel appeared on the date fixed and OP 4 was proceeded against ex-parte, on 30.01.2013.