The court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to procedural monitoring unless manifest injustice results, allowing a party to file a surrejoinder to address objections to the other party's filing.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails orders dated 22nd January, 2020 and 12th February, 2020, passed by the learned National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC"), in Consumer Case 73/2017.

2. In as much as I am proposing to dispose of this petition with an order which would not cause any prejudice to the respondent, I do not deem it necessary to issue formal notice in the matter.

3. A short history of the litigation is necessary. A complaint was filed by Respondent 1 against the petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 before the learned NCDRC. The petitioner was Opposite Party No. 3. Replies were filed, to the complaint, by the three opposite parties, including the petitioner. On 27th April, 2017, the learned NCDRC directed the respondents to file rejoinder to the replies filed by the petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 within four weeks. This time was extended by subsequent orders dated 20th June, 2017 and 13th November, 2017.

4. Three rejoinders, one to each of the replies filed by the three opposite parties (including the present petitioner), were filed by the respondent on 12th February, 2018, with an application for granting extension of time to take the rejoinders on record. Vide order dated 20th February, 2018, the learned NCDRC permitted the rejoinders to be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.

5. On 24th April, 2018, the petitioner filed an objection to the rejoinder filed by Respondent No. 1 to his counter affidavit. While the said objection was pending, on 6th August, 2018, Respondent 1 filed Application 14589/2018, to correct the rejoinder earlier filed by him to the reply of the petitioner. This application, alleges the petitioner, was filed under the signature of the Counsel for Respondent 1, and the affidavit accompanying the application was also affirmed only by the Counsel. The signature of the Respondent 1did not figure on the application or on the affidavit. This application sought replacement of certain pages of the rejoinder earlier filed by the respondent on 12th February, 2018.

6. The petitioner filed his objection to the aforesaid application Application 14589/2018, before the learned NCDRC, on 7th December, 2018.

7. Vide order dated 13th December, 2018, the learned NCDRC permitted Respondent 1 to file the corrected rejoinder within four weeks. This period was extended by subsequent order dated 3rd April, 2019, by three weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. By a subsequent order dated 20th September, 2019, however, the learned NCDRC waived the costs earlier imposed by it on 03rd April, 2019 and directed that, if they had already been deposited, the costs be refunded to the Respondent. The respondent was permitted to file the corrected rejoinder within six weeks.

8. On 30th October, 2019, the Respondent 1 filed three fresh rejoinders which, according to the petitioner, differed in several material particulars from the rejoinders which had earlier been filed on 12th February, 2018 and incorporated several changes which were in excess of those envisaged by Application 14589/2018. In effect, the petitioner alleges that the aforesaid rejoinders sought to overcome the objections raised by the petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 in their replies to the Respondent 1's complaint.

9. At this stage, in January, 2020, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CM(M) 6/2020, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench by order dated 7th January, 2020, which reads thus:

"1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the National Consumer Dispu