(1.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there are two Opposite Parties, namely, Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Branch Latur and Shriram Chits Fund (Maharashtra) Limited and that the Complainant had arrayed Shriram Chits Fund (Maharashtra) Limited, i.e., the Petitioner herein, together with Shriram City Union Finance Limited. The notice in the Complaint had not been issued to the Petitioner and the notice before the District Forum was issued only to Shriram City Union Finance Limited which is a separate legal entity.
(2.) It is submitted by the Counsel that Shriram Chits Fund (Maharashtra) Limited, the Petitioner herein, had preferred First Appeal No. 530 of 2015 and Shriram City Union Finance Limited had preferred First Appeal No.531 of 2015 before the State Commission and that both these Appeals were dismissed. It has been observed by the State Commission that Advocate R. P. Mote appeared for both the Appellants and that the Petitioner herein did not appear or file its Written Version before the District Forum. It is observed from the record that before the District Forum both the parties were arrayed together as one Opposite Party. Therefore, in the absence of any specific notice issued to the Petitioner herein, there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel that Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Limited was not given an opportunity to file their Written Version and submit their case on merits before the District Forum.
(3.) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Revision Petition is allowed and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the District Forum to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law.