RULDU RAM GUPTA Vs. RAJ SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in Appeal No.1007/2004. The State Commission, by the impugned order, set aside the order passed by the District Forum, viz -a -viz, Shri Raj Suri, who was the opposite party in the complaint. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the State Commission without issuing notice to the petitioner, may be for doing equitable justice. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (original complainant) submitted that the impugned order cannot be justified. If the petitioner was heard, he would have pointed out that respondent (complainant) - Raj Suri remained present before the District Forum and took active part in the proceedings. Therefore, the order cannot be said to have been passed without hearing him.

(2.) Considering the dispute involved and as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the order passed by the State Commission setting aside the order passed by the District Forum, viz -a -viz, Raj Suri only, is confirmed on the condition that Shri Raj Suri would deposit Rs. 25,000/ - before the District Forum on or before 15.1.2006. The District Forum would decide the matter on merits. Meantime, it would be open to the District Forum to execute the order against rest of the opposite parties in the original complaint against whom the order has become final.

(3.) Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision disposed of accordingly.