Parties must adhere to procedural timelines set by the Consumer Protection Act for filing responses; extensions are not permissible beyond the specified limits.

1. The petitioners / opposite parties have filed this revision petition against the order dated 24.4.2019 passed in C.C.No. 202/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (For short 'District Commission') whereby their application dated 7.12.2018 for taking affidavit and documents on record, was dismissed by the District Commission.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that after service of notice dated 12.1.2017 of complaint, the petitioners / opposite parties first time appeared through Counsel on 15.2.2017 but did not file any reply. They filed reply to the complaint on 9.3.2017, i.e. beyond a period of 45 days. However, the District Commission vide order dated 2.11.2018 allowed their belated reply to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000 to the complainant / respondent. Thereafter the case was fixed for final hearing on 7.12.2018. On 7.12.2018 Counsel for parties appeared in first hours. However, in second hours again Counsel for opposite parties / petitioner appeared and filed affidavit and documents along with an application for taking the same on record. The District Commission declined their prayer and dismissed the application. Challenging the said order the opposite parties have preferred the present revision on the ground that the petitioners could not get an opportunity to put their evidence before the District Commission.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the District Commission has committed gross irregularity by not taking their evidence and documents on record and also by not giving an opportunity to complainant to file rejoinder. It is their further grievance that the matter is fixed for rejoinder and affidavit & documents filed on the very next date were not taken on record, therefore, the impugned order is against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act').

4. For disposal of this revision, relevant provisions of the Act is necessary to be discussed herein. S.13 of the Act deals with the procedure on admission of complaint. S.13 is necessary to be reproduced:
"S.13. Procedure on admission of complaint. (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within aperiod of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by theDistrict Forum.
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(d) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(e) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(f) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(g)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaints admitted by it under S.12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in Sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under Clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle consumer dispute,
(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
(ii) ex parte on the basis