Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bhanwar Singh, President and Rachna, Member
RAM PAL - Appellant
Versus
SHYAM LAL CHAURASIA - Respondent
Revision No. 63 of 2009
Decided on : 01-05-2009
Mr. S.K. Shukla, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the revisionist the opportunity to file a written statement and held that the non-reasoned order suffering from jurisdictional error deprived the revisionist of this valuable right, leading to serious legal infirmity and material irregularity.
Headnote:
Order - Impugned Order - The court found the impugned order to be non-reasoned and against the tenets of justice as it deprived the revisionist of the right to file a written statement, leading to serious legal infirmity and material irregularity. The court allowed the revision and quashed the non-reasoned order suffering from jurisdictional error.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist moved an application for time to file a written statement, but no order was passed on the application and the case was listed for final hearing, depriving the revisionist of the valuable right to file a written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order to be non-reasoned and against the tenets of justice, suffering from serious legal infirmity and material irregularity. The court allowed the revision and quashed the non-reasoned order suffering from jurisdictional error.
Issues: Deprivation of the revisionist's right to file a written statement and the non-reasoned order suffering from jurisdictional error.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the forum below had no jurisdiction to refuse to grant time to the revisionist to file the written statement without a valid reason and that the impugned order suffered from serious legal infirmity and material irregularity.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the non-reasoned order suffering from jurisdictional error was quashed, allowing the revisionist to file the written statement by the date fixed for further proceedings.
ORDER
Bhanwar Singh, President (Oral ) - Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order dated 19.2.2009. By virtue of this order, the Complaint Case No. 144/2008, Sri Shyam Lal Chaurasia v. Sri Ram Pal, appears to have been listed for final hearing on 16.3.2009. Although the revisionist/opposite party had moved an application for time to file written statement, yet no order was passed on the said application and the case was straightaway listed for final hearing. Apart, that the impugned order is absolutely non-reasoned, it is against the tenets of justice as it has deprived the revisionist of his valuable right to file written statement. The revisionist cannot be restrained in this short slip manner from pleading his cause by way of brining his written statement on record. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order suffer from serious legal infirmity and material irregularity. If allowed to stand it will be result in miscarriage of justice. It was certainly not within the jurisdiction of the Forum below to refuse to grant time to the revisionist to file his written statement unless of course there would have been a valid reason to do so. As mentioned above not an iota of reasoning has been disclosed for refusing the prayer for an opportunity to file the written statement.
2. In the result, this revision succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The non-reasoned order which also suffers from jurisdictional error is hereby quashed. The revisionist can file his written statement by the date fixed so that further proceedings can go on in accordance with law.
