Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — In our opinion the impugned order passed by the State Commission striking off the defence of the Opposite Pary is not warranted by the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is no doubt true that the Opposite Party had not filed its written objections within the period allowed by the statute and it was well within power of State Commission to hear and dispose of the case without granting further time to the Opposite Party for filling its objections. But even in such event the Opposite Party had every right to be heard in defence by making its oral submissions before the State Commission both on the questions of fact as well as on the questions of law. In the absence of any provision in the Consumer Protection Act/such as the one contained in the Civil Procedure Code, empowering the Forum to impose a bar as against the Opposite Party from putting forward any defence of the case by the process of “striking off defence”, there is no warrant for passing such an order and depriving the Opposite Party of its natural and legal right to put forward its defence by making oral submissions before the Forum when the case is taken up for