Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Amarpreet Sharma, Member
SONY WORLD - Appellant
Versus
AMAN JAIN @ AMIT JAIN - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 42 of 2010
Decided on : 31-05-2010
Mr. Updip Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The legal principle that even a second complaint is maintainable if the first complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Headnote:
Restoration - Want of Prosecution - The court considered the application for restoration of the original complaint and found no evidence of a habit of taking false plea by the respondent's counsel. The court also referred to the legal principle that even a second complaint is maintainable if the first complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a restoration application after the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the counsel's alleged error in noting the date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for restoration was valid and referred to legal principles supporting the restoration of complaints dismissed in default.
Issues: Validity of restoration application, payment of costs, and applicability of legal principles from previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the restoration application was valid and that even a second complaint is maintainable if the first complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order restoring the complaint.
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - Aman Jain @ Amit Jain, respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner in the learned District Forum, Amritsar. It was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.2.2010.
2. The respondent filed the restoration application on the plea that the Counsel for the respondent had wrongly noted the date as 2.3.2010 and for that reason Counsel for the respondent could not appear in the District Forum on 24.2.2010.
3. It was accepted by the learned District Forum vide order dated 26.4.2010 on the payment of cost of Rs. 200 and the file was adjourned to 11.5.2010 for filing the written statement by the petitioner.
4. Hence this petition.
5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent was that neither costs have been paid nor the complaint could be restored. Hence it was prayed that petition be accepted and the impugned order dated 26.4.2010 be set-aside.
Relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as Gurcharan Singh v. Leena Rani and Others, 1997 (2) CCC 327 (P and H).
6. Considered.
7. The facts in the reported judgment were different. In that case, the suit was dismissed in default. Thereafter an application for restoration of the suit was dismissed as the Counsel had again failed to appear. Another application was filed for restoration of the restoration application. In these circumstances the Hon'ble High Court has pleased to hold Para 6:
"After hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. For restoration of the suit and the application dismissed in default, the plea taken is that the Counsel had wrongly noted the date. On perusal of the record, I am of the view that the plea taken is an after-thought and the petitioner is in the habit of taking such a plea. Respondents have brought on record a copy of the application filed by the petitioner in some other proceedings pending before the Rent Controller where a similar application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside ex parte order dated 18.9.1984. In that application too, petitioner has taken similar plea by saying that the Counsel had noted the date as 18.10.1984 when in fact he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 18.9.1984. Not only this, no explanation has been given by the petitioner or his Counsel for not producing the diary or brief on which he noted the dates for appearance. In absence of material on record, Trial Court had no alternative but to disbelieve the plea of the petitioner that his Counsel had wrongly noted the dates and his non-appearance on the date fixed was bona fide. The finding having been arrived at on the basis of material on record is not to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction."
8. In the present case, the application was filed for restoration of the original complaint and no such habit on the part of the Counsel for the respondent of taking such plea has been proved. Therefore this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. On the other hand Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that even second complaint is maintainable if the first complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as New India Assurance Company v. Sriniwasan, I (2000) CLT 414 (SC). It was also held in the judgment reported as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Co-op. House Building Society v. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, (2000) 9 SCC 361, that restoration of the complaint dismissed in default is legal.
10. Moreover the learned District Forum in its wisdom restored the complaint which was dismissed for want of prosecution. This Court does not consider it proper to interfere in the aforesaid order.
11. Further submits that even costs have not been paid.
12. However learned District Forum has already mentioned in the order dated 26.4.2010 that costs have been paid. There is no ground to disbelieve the recital to
