IMPORTANT POINT
Ex-parte proceeding should be avoided.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent No. 1 in person.

2. This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 15.05.2014 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. 119/2013 - Amrik Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr., by which complaint was allowed ex-parte.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents filed complaint before State Commission against opposite parties/appellants and Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte on the basis of deemed service and Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear even after personal service and allowed complaint, against which this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice from State Commission was received by Appellant No. 1 and further submitted that as counsel appointed by appellants in several matters joined judicial service so could not appear before State Commission and later on it was found that case was proceeded ex-parte, which may be set aside. Respondent No. 1 submitted that as opposite party No. 2 did not appear even after personal service, appeal it liable to be dismissed. But he cannot say anything about service on opposite party no. 1.

5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that opposite party no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte on the basis of not receiving back notice within period of 30 days. No doubt such inference can be drawn but as learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice was received by opposite party no. 1, impugned order passed ex-parte against opposite party no. 1 is liable to set aside.

6. As far ex-parte order against opposite party no. 2 is concerned, as per impugned order she was served personally and learned State Commission rightly proceeded ex-part against her. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties in many other cases joined judicial service so could not appear. In such circumstances it would be appropriate to set aside ex-parte order passed against opposite party no. 2 also, subject to cost.

7. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and order dated 15-05-2014 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. 119/2013 – Amrik Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by Appellant No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 on or before the date of appearance before State Commission. Appellants are directed to file their written statements on the next date before State Commission. Respondent No. 1 is directed to supply copy of paper book filed before State Commission to counsel for appellant within a month. Learned State Commission is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

8. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 06.07.2015.

Appeal allowed.

**********