A right has been created in favour of the respondent that no appeal would be heard against the orders of the Divisional Forum filed beyond time without giving sound and reasonable ground for the same.

Mr. Justice G.M. Mir, President—This is an appeal against the order of Divisional Forum Jammu dated 27.9.1990 alongwith an application for condonation of delay and an application for Stay. The appeal alongwith the said application was filed in this Commission on 2.11.1993. The grounds taken in the appeal inter alia are that the order was passed in ex-party without notice to the Appellant who came to know about the passing of the impugned order for the first time on 20.9.1992 when a notice was received by them from the Court of District Judge to file their objections in the matter of execution proceeding taken out by the complainant Decree Holder. The appellant immediately appeared before the District Judge on 3.10.92. In execution proceedings pending in that Court the appellant came to know that the final order has been passed by the Divisional Forum, Jammu on 27.9.1990. It has been alleged before us that the appellant had no knowledge of the order nor have received any notice. That the case has been fixed in the Divisional Forum for argument on 27.9.1990 and because of this the appellant did not cause its appearance in the Divisional Forum on that particular date. It has been submitted that in the interest of justice it would be just and lawful to condone the delay caused in filing the instant appeal, against the impugned order of the Divisional Forum and that the appeal he heard and disposed off on merits as the order under appeal was defective on a variety of grounds and could not have been passed by the D/F had the law points raised therein been considered. The opposite party vehemently opposed and has submitted that there was no reasonable case shown by the appellant for condonation of delay.

2. It appears that the complaint in the D/F was filed on 9.11.89 and it was disposed off on 27.7/90. The contents of the complaint reveal that in the year 1980 a car was booked by the complainant herein with the JK Motors Corp., Ltd., Jammu and paid Rs. 500/- as earnest money. On 22.12.89 the complainant was asked to take the delivery of the car on payment of Rs. 61,900/-. He went to the office of the respondent where he was told to deposit Rs. 10,000/- more. He did so and was told that he will be given delivery of the car soon thereafter. The Car, however, was not delivered and the matter was being delayed. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post to get the delivery of the Car and when the applicant failed to do so the respondent in the alternative asked for the refund of the amount paid by him but neither the amount was paid to him nor the car was delivered. He, thereafter, filed the complaint in the Divisional Forum, Jammu. A notice came to be sent from the said Forum to the appellant herein directing them to file their version of the case. It was further said in the notice that in the same of failure the Forum shall settle the dispute under the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act, 1987. The case was adjourned to 11.12.89 for further proceedings. The appellant appeared on 8.12.89 in the Forum and filed objections but thereafter filed to attend the Forum on the next date fixed i.e. 11.12.89. The Forum therefore, proceeded ex-party against the absent party. The other respondent therein also appeared and filed objections. On 5.4.90 which was fixed by the next date, none appeared and, therefore, exparty proceedings were set against the respondents 2 and 3. The complainant in his evidence got himself examined and after hearing the arguments the Divisional Forum disposed of the complaint by venture of the impugned order dated 27.7.90.

3. It appears that appellant who was respondent No. 3 in the complaint before the Divisional Forum Jammu has appeared throughout on almost all dated fixed in the Divisional Forum but the complaint was listed for hearing of arguments and disposal, the appellant was not represented by the Counsel. The Divisional Forum proceeded ex-party and heard the complaint therein and passed the ord