A GOYAL Vs. JAIDEV AGGARWAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears on behalf of respondent no.1 even on the third call. Respondent no.1 is, therefore, proceeded ex parte.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab on MA No. 954 of 2012 in First Appeal No. 595 of 2012 dated 27.09.2012, whereby the State Commission dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and as a consequence, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

(3.) Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent no.1 complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner as also respondent no.2 alleging deficiency in service on their part in respect of allotment of plot of 200 sq. yards in a developer project jointly undertaken by the petitioner and opposite party no.2. Both the opposite parties were proceeded ex parte and the complaint was allowed with following directions: