The short question that falls for consideration in these batch of revisions is whether against the dismissal of I.A.SRs filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by the District Consumer Forum-II, a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution can be entertained or not?

Petitioner in all the revisions is the second opposite party before the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada in C.C.Nos.252 to 255 of 2008, 18, 19, 79, 80, 86 and 93 of 2009 filed by the various respondents/complainants. In the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent/complainant before the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada, an ex parte order was passed on 31.03.2007 for non-appearance of the petitioner and also opposite party No.1 and the said C.Cs. were posted on 03.04.2009 for filing the affidavit of the complainant. On complainant filing the affidavit on the said date, the Forum posted the C.Cs., for orders on 06.04.2009 and accordingly, allowed the C.Cs. on 06.04.2009. Thereby, the petitioner filed I.A.(SR).Nos.1493, 1497, 1461 and 1459, 1401, 1400, 1441, 1481, 1440, 1464 of 2009 in the said C.Cs. respectively, under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte order, dated 06.04.2009. The said I.A.(SRs)., were returned stating that the order passed on 06.04.2009 by the Forum is a final order on merits and the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal before the State Commission, Hyderabad. On re-presentation, the same were returned stating how the verdict reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., R.Srinivasan [1] is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the petition and of the final order at length. Questioning the same, the present revisions under Article 227 are filed.

Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, “the Act”), an appeal lies against the final order passed by the District Forum. Since the procedure contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code is made applicable to the Forum while deciding the consumer dispute cases, the applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC should have been entertained and the order returning the I.As so filed, is not appealable under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, revision is always maintainable. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.’s case (1 supra), wherein it was held that the provisions under Order IX Rule 9 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Where the Court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a lis between the parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case for default, so also it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint. By placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [2], he contends that the High Court will have supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Forum committed an error in rejecting the I.A.(SRs)., and hence, the same are liable to be set aside.

In Surya Dev Rai’s case (2 supra) the Supreme Court held that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters, which are found in Certiorari jurisdiction. It was further held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction,