SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

P. J. Lamech – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras – Respondent


ORDER

S.A. Kader, President - This is an application to set aside the dismissal of the complaint for default on 11.9.1991.

2. The above O.P. was posted to 11.9.1991 for hearing. On that day it was taken up at 10.45 a.m. and the complainant was absent. It was again taken up at 11.10 a.m. and the complainant was again absent. There was nobody to represent the complainant, while the respondent was represented by his counsel. The complaint was dismissed for default. It is to set aside the order of the dismissal and restore the complainant to file this application has been riled by the complainant.

3. There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Actor in the rules framed thereunder for setting aside the ex parte final order. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable under Section 13(4) of the Act only in respect of certain limited matters and they do not include the setting aside of a dismissal of the complaint for default. In Subramanian v. Periamma and others(1991 I Madras Weekly Notes C.P.(page 23), this Commission has observed as follows:

"It is true that the provision of Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act docs not include the power to set aside the ex



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top