The date of knowledge of the order of the District Forum wherein the party is represented before it by Counsel is the pronouncement of that order in open Court and no other.

Mr. justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—What is the “date of the knowledge of the order” of the District Forum wherein the party is fully represented before it by Counsel? This is the significant threshold question in this set of three appeals, in the wake of a recent decision of the National Commission in II (1992) CPJ 528 (NC), M/s. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Dhir Copy House & Anr.

2. These appeals have been listed on the preliminary issue of limitation. Since the question arising herein is identical, this order will govern all of them. The relevant facts which are not in serious dispute may be noticed from First Appeal No. 389 of 1992 (Housing Board, Haryana & Anr. v. Housing Board Welfare Association & Anr.).

3. The order of the District Forum was pronounced in open Court on the 22nd of October, 1992. It is manifest from the order that the appellant-Board was represented therein by Shri Tirath Singh, Advocate. The complaint was duly contested on behalf of the Board both on the issues of fact and law as is evident from the order itself and the judgment was pronounced on the date aforementioned. However, the present appeal was preferred on the 30th of November, 1992 beyond the strictly prescribed period of thirty days under Section 15 of the Act.

4. Mr. K.K. Jaggi the learned Counsel for the appellants took up the plea that the terminus for determining the period of thirty days aforementioned has to begin only from the date of the receipt of the order by the appellant. It was submitted that the copy of the order bears the date of its attestation and certification by the Superintendent on the 30th October, 1992 and it may be therefore presumed that the same was received by the appellant much later. The firm stand taken was that this being so, the present appeal was clearly within limitation in view of the ratio in M/s. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Dhir Copy House & Anr. (supra).

5. The specific and the somewhat vehement contention of Shri Jagia, the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the appellant-Board would not have the knowledge of the order until and unless a copy thereof was delivered to it. The express stand taken was that even if the order was pronounced in open Court in the presence of the Counsel or otherwise, the Board cannot be deemed to have the knowledge thereof until and unless it receives the copy and peruses the reasoning for the same. The submission was that even the allowance and dismissal of the complaint in presence of the party or his Counsel would not be tantamount to the knowledge of the order until and unless the reasons thereof are deciphered from its copy, sent to the Board under Rule 4(10).

6. We are afraid that it is not possible to subscribe to the doctrinaire stand taken on behalf of the appellant-Board. However, since a serious attempt is being made to raise the submission primarily and wholly on the recent binding decision in M/s. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Dhir Copy House & Anr. (supra), the compliment of a rational refutation has to be extended thereto.

7. In this context, it becomes necessary to analyze and arrive at a true import of the aforesaid judgment. It was rended in revision proceedings arising from two orders of this Commission. As stands expressly noticed by the National Commission itself, both these cases pertained to the orders of the District Forums passed against the opposite party in ex-parte proceedings. The core question therefore, was whether a party proceeded against in its absence could be planted with the knowledge of the order pronounced in its absence whilst in actual fact it may not even be aware of the said proceedings at all. It was in this firm fact-situation that the National Commission had observed as under—

“We are of the opinion that the orders of the State Commission cannot be sustained. As noticed earlier in both the cases the orders were passed against the Opposite Parties in their absence. They came to know of th