The High Court should not interfere in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the redressal of grievance against any order passed by the Forum, unless in a very exceptional case.

( 1 ) MR. Ganesh Shrivastava, learned Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and files his Vakalatnama in Court today. Let it be kept on record.

( 2 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. N. Mukherjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Sen and the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, Mr. Ganesh Shrivastava. Considered the materials on record.

( 3 ) BY this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a doctor, challenged the Order No. 15, dated 14th December, 1995, passed by the President and a Member of the District Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, in D. F. C. Case No. 90 of 1994, whereby the learned Forum allowed the petition of the petitioner in that proceeding for restoration by restoring the proceeding to its original file and number after the matter was contested by the opposite party therein.

( 4 ) THE fact, briefly stated, is that the opposite party No. 1 herein was a patient of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein performed an operation of dichotomy on her and it is alleged that due to rash and negligence of the doctor in such operation the doctor perforated urinary bladder of the opposite party No. 1 herein, which ultimately forced her to be treated by another doctor and to undergo a further operation. On this fact the opposite party No. 1 herein filed a petition 5 of complaint for compensation before the District Redressal Forum, Barasat, and a proceeding started thereon being D. F. C. Case No. 90 of 1994, as mentioned earlier. The matter reached the stage of evidence And the date was fixed for that on 3rd August, 1995. The case was dismissed for default as the petitioner therein could not appear before the Forum along with her Advocate and the plea was taken that due to torrential rain in course of that day she could not come to the Forum along with her Advocate on time as their car was stranded due to water-logging and as such she was prevented from arriving at the Forum during the time of hearing. But immediately thereafter she appeared before the. Forum and prayed for fixation of a date for hearing and for taking evidence after condoning the delay. That petition was treated as a petition for restoration and/or recalling the order being Order No. 11 dated 3-8-95. The matter regarding restoration was decided on merit alter going into the evidence of the parties. It will be apposite to mention here that only the complainant laid evidence and the opposite party did not adduce any evidence. Be that as it may, by the order impugned the Forum after allowing the petition for restoration actually restored the proceeding being D. F. C. Case No. 90 of 1994. That is the subject-matter of this present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) A point arose as to whether this Court shall interfere with such an order in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) MR. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner contended, inter alia, that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the order of the District Redressal Forum has been challenged and in support of his contention Mr. Moorkerjee relied on some decisions of this Court and the Apex Court to wit, Shrimati Saswati, Mehrotra (nee Mukhopadhyay) v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1994) 1 Cal HN 167; Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1993 Cal 4; ANZ Grindlays Bank v. President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, reported in (1995) 1 Cal HN 214 : (AIR 1995 Cal 104); United Bank of India v. Hirak Mukherjee, reported in (1995) 1 Cal HN 501; and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 at page 380.

( 7 ) MR. Shrivastava on the other hand contended on behalf of