FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

I.A. No.587 of 2026 & 588 of 2026 In/and Revision Petition No.25 of 2026 Date of institution : 30.03.2026 Date of Decision : 17.04.2026 The District Education Office (Primary) Jalandhar, through its Administrator/Authorised Persons.

….Revisionist/OP Versus Anil Kumar son of Late Smt. Kamla Devi (Ex. BPEO Head Quarter) R/o H.No.10, Parkash Vihar, Tower Enclave, Phase-2, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

……Respondent/complainant Revision Petition under Section 47 of the CP Act, 2019 against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For revisionist : Sh. Naresh Kumar Jandoli, Advocate H.P.S. MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER: -

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Revisionist/OP against the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Consumer Complaint No.300 of 2025 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar vide which the opportunity of the revisionist/OP for filing written statement was closed by order and the revisionist/OP was proceeded against ex-parte. Along with this revision petition, the Revisionist/OP has also filed an application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the revision petition.

I.A. No.587 of 2026 (Delay)

This application has been filed by learned counsel for revisionist for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the revision petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 42 days in filing the revision petition is condoned subject to cost of Rs.2,100/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Commission, Jalandhar within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, which is condition precedent.

Main case

3. This is a revision petition referred by the revisionist/OP assailing the order of the District Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar dated 17.11.2025 vide which the opportunity of the revisionist/OP for filing written statement was closed by order and the revisionist/OP was proceeded against ex-parte, alleging that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons, the revisionist/OP could not put in appearance on the relevant date and consequently, the District Commission was pleased to proceed against the revisionist-OP ex-parte vide order dated 17.11.2025. The ex-parte order has resulted in serious prejudice to the revisionist/OP as the revisionist/OP has a strong, bona fide and meritorious defence in the matter and has already disbursed a substantial part of the claimed amount, facts could not be brought to the notice of the District Commission due to the said ex-parte proceeding. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the ex-parte order dated 17.11.2025 be set aside and the revisionist/OP be allowed to appear and contest the matter on merits.

4. Considering the fact that the law is very clear on this issue that the parties should be heard on merits instead of dismissing the plea on technical grounds which will not serve any purpose.

5. It is also a settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal”, AIR 2010-SC-2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.

6. In another case “Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand” (1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that court’s approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.

7. In view of the above, it is clear that no prejudice wil