IMPORTANT POINT
A time-barred revision petition cannot be entertained.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The main controversy revolves round the fact whether OP Nos. 1 & 2 should be given an opportunity to file the written statement after the expiry of more than 489 days from their service. Counsel for the petitioner present. The order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the State Commission runs as follows:-

“Heard Mr. Prakash Kadam, Advocate for the complainant. None present for the opponents. Their postal acknowledgements show that notices of the opponents were received on their behalf by one Mr.Sadam. Under the circumstance, we direct the complainant to file Service Affidavit under Section 28-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Matter stands adjourned to 06/12/2012”.

2. The order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the State Commission runs as follows:-

“06.12.2012:

Mr. P.B. Kadam, Advocate for the Complainant. Complainant - Smt.Naila A. Saudagar files service affidavit as per Provisions of Section 28-A of the Consumer Protection Act in respect of Opponent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Faiyaz Shaikh, Opponent No.4 present. In the circumstances, complaint to proceed in the absence of other partners of the Opponent firm M/s.Raj Construction, viz.Opponent No.2 - Mrs.Asma Begum sheikh and Opponent No.3 - Riaz Shaikh. Since Opponent No.1 Partnership firm is represented by Opponent No.4 – Mr.Faiz Shaikh before us, we find that the firm is appropriately served and now represented. The Partner of Opponent No.4 Mr. Faiz Shaikh files Application-cum-affidavit stating that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and prayed accordingly. No formal written version is filed. Hence, complaint to proceed in the absence of their written version but it is made clear in the application stating the ground on which the complaint should be dismissed. Thus, we direct the parties to lead their respective evidence under Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing their affidavits and/or affidavits of their witnesses, if any. Parties are further directed to prepare their affidavits well in advance and serve copies thereof before hand to the other side. On receipt of such affidavits from the other side, the parties are at a liberty to file their counter-affidavits, if any. Such counter-affidavits shall also be prepared well in advance and copies thereof shall be exchanged with the other side at-least a fortnight prior to the next date of hearing. Affidavits, counter-affidavits and relevant documents shall be presented before the State Commission on 22/01/2013”.

3. Counsel for the Opponents -1 & 2 appears. It is clear that Mr. Faiyaz Shaikh appeared on behalf of Opponents 1, 2 & 3. OP-1 firm was served through one Mr. Sadam. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. Sadam is not the petitioner’s employee and the service upon the petitioner does not stand effected. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Consumer Forum as the summon was pasted on the firm. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner should be permitted to file W.S., though, he has filed the evidence by way of affidavit.

4. The case pertains to the year 2012. Three years have already elapsed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had taken three dates and on two occasions the case was adjourned because the Commission had no time. It is contended that there is no much delay on his part, hence his application should be allowed subject to costs. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that they have filed the evidence by way of affidavit before the Registrar and it is yet to be allowed by the Commission to be placed on the record.

5. All these arguments have left no impression upon me. As many as three years have elapsed. The intention of the petitioner is to procrastinate the case unnecessarily. It wants to gain time on one pretext or the other. This case is pending before this Commission since 08.07.2014. There was a delay of 489 days in filing the Revision Petition. Counsel for the pet