The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision for time limit in Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directory in nature and does not create a substantive right to reject a reply filed beyond the specified period.

Brijesh Kumar, J.—Leave granted. Heard appellant in person and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the revision filed by the appellant. The short point in controversy is, as to whether or not the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, could grant time to the respondent to file his reply, beyond a total period of 45 days, in view of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act).

3. The appellant filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Consumer Redressal Commission, claiming compensation against the respondent, on account of alleged failure on the part of the respondent in advancing the loan to the appellant despite of furnishing the security for the same. The respondent received notice, issued by the Commission, on 22.2.2000. According to the said notice 4.4.2000 was the date fixed before the State Commission. The respondent appeared on 4.4.2000 and moved an application for adjournment of the case and grant of time to file reply. The case was adjourned for 4.5.2000. On the said date, namely, 4.5.2000, the respondent-Bank filed its reply. The appellant thereafter seems to have filed their rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. On the next date, namely, 24.7.2000 the appellant moved an application before the State Commission saying that the reply filed by the respondent was beyond a period of 30 days initially admissible for filing reply and also beyond a further period of 15 days as could be extended for the purpose. Hence, it was prayed that the reply of the respondent may not be accepted on record and the rejoinder filed by the appellant may also be returned to it. According to the appellant, a total period of time for filing of reply could not exceed beyond 45 days, as per Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. The application was, however, rejected by the State Commission but a cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the respondent for late filing of the reply.

4. While refusing the prayer to reject the reply, the Commission observed that the delay did not appear to be gross or contrary to the order passed granting adjournment on 4.4.2000. The Commission further observed that the discretion vested to extend time for 15 days could be exercised from time to time as the occasion may require and for arriving at this conclusion, the State Commission has relied upon decisions of this Court reported in National Sewing Thread Co., Chidambaram v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 357 and Vasanlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 4, as well as on Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. It has also been observed that these are matters of procedure which are hand-made of justice. The revision preferred against the said order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was dismissed as it was considered that no ground was made out to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdictions.

5. Shri H.M.G. Murthy who appeared in person for the appellant, submitted that the State Commission had no power to accept a reply filed beyond a total period of 45 days. Initially the respondent is required to submit the reply within 30 days which period could be extended not exceeding 15 days as would be evident from the plain and bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. It is also submitted that the discretion vested in the Forum/Commission to extend the time cannot be exercised from time to time as held by the State Commission since that would frustrate the purpose of the provision itself. The case of the respondent is that the provision fixing a period for submission of reply, is only procedural in nature, and it cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to deprive a party of being heard on merits of his case. It is also submitted, on facts, that the notice was received on 22.2.2000 and the appellant was required to be pr