The court has the discretion to permit the filing of a reply beyond the prescribed period, subject to payment of costs, and can allow the trial to proceed after receiving the reply.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. In the present case, the appellants were directed to be proceeded against ex parte for not having filed a written statement within a period of 45 days, as required under Section 13(1)A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ["the Act"]. This order has been affirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In view of the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, on a reference to a larger Bench, on the issue as to whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the jurisdiction to extend time to file a written statement beyond the period prescribed by the Act, the following order was passed on 8 August 2016:

"Issue notice.

Await till the decision of the larger Bench on the issue in Civil Appeal Nos. 1083-1084 of 2016.

Stay of the proceedings before the State Commission would not only result in procrastination but also cause prejudice to the respondent. The proper course is to permit the appellant-company to file its response. We accordingly permit the appellant to file its reply before the State Commission within two weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to be paid to the opposite party. The Commission can upon deposit of costs proceed with the trial of the respondent on merits after receiving the reply filed by the respondent. The pendency of present proceedings shall not be an impediment for the Commission to do so. This however is subject to the condition that the respondent is ready and willing to take the proceedings forward on the condition aforementioned. In case the respondent has any objection to the continuance of the proceedings before the Commission, he shall be free to seek stay of such proceedings pending disposal of this petition in which event the proceedings shall remain stayed till disposal of present petition."

3. The office report indicates that service is complete. None appears on behalf of the appellants and the respondent.

4. In the above circumstances, we will proceed on the basis that the order dated 8 August 2016 has worked itself out and that on the payment of costs of Rs 50,000, the trial has proceeded before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

5. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 26 May 2016. No order as to costs.

6. Since none of the parties have appeared, we give them opportunity to approach this Court, in the event it becomes necessary to do so.