J.K. Malik, Presiding Member—In this case, a consumer complaint No. 166 of 2013 was filed before the State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Dudhai Associates admitted that the petitioner was served in this case on 10.6.2013. On 9.7.2013, the State Commission passed the following order:

“09/07/2013

Complainant as well as counsel for the Complainant is absent. Opponent No. 1 is present through Adv. Reena Singh. She undertakes to file her Vakalatnama on the next date. Adv. Smt. Bindu Jain is present on behalf of the Opponent No. 3. She files her Vakalatnama. It is taken on the record. In spite of due service of notice after admission, the Opponent No. 2 is absent today. Complaint to proceed in absence of the Opponent No. 2. Both the learned advocates requested for grant of extension of time for filing written version. Time granted. In the interest of justice time is granted to the Opponents No. 1 and 3 by way of a last chance for filing written version and complaint stands adjourned to 23.10.2013.”

2. On 23.7.2013, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment. It was contended that settlement talks were going on between the complainants and the opposite parties. A further adjournment was prayed. On the same day, i.e. on 23.10.2013. The State Commission passed the following order:

“Adv. S. B. Prabhawalkar appears for the complainant without letter of authority. He undertakes to file letter of authority during the course of day. Adv. Ramvilas I. Yadav is present for the opponent No. 1 and he files vakalatnama of Mr. Sanjeev Singh-advocate for the opponent No. 1. He also files letter of authority. Adv. Bindu Jain is present for the opponent no. 3.

Opponents have failed to file written version in spite of sufficient opportunity. Hence, the complaint to proceed without written version against the opponent nos. 1 to 3.

Interim application filed by the complainant is not opposed by the opponents by filing reply in writing. Orally, they have opposed the interim application. Adv. Bindu Jain has made a statement at Bar on behalf of the opponent no. 3 that the opponent no. 3 will not create third party interest in the subject matter. But Adv. Bindu Jain has strong objection for refund of rent. Adv. Yadav for the opponent no. 3 is not ready with arguments. Prayer (b) of the interim application will be considered at the time of final hearing of the consumer complaint. Now, the interim relief is granted in terms of the prayer (a) of the interim application.

Matter now stands adjourned for leading evidence by the complainant. Hence complainant is directed to file evidence on affidavit as per Section 13(2)(b)(ii) r/w Sec. 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Adjourned to 13.01.2014.”

3. A bare perusal on record clearly goes to show that there is no inkling that negotiations for compromise were going on. Even learned counsel for the opponent no. 1 was not present. He appeared through his proxy counsel. On the contrary, the arguments on interim relief were heard and the interim relief was granted. No joint request was ever made in order to get the case adjourned. The petitioner wanted to procrastinate the proceedings for one reason or the other.

4. It may be mentioned here that as per Dr. J. J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi 1 decided by three judges bench the written version is barred by time. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that for having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be strictly adhered to. It was further held that if this is not adhered, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated.

5. A wee bit different view was taken in Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors.2 That too was decided by three judges bench in civil appeal No. 7000 of 2004 decided on 6.4.2005 wherein it was held:

“(v) Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is