Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani – Member

1. The revision petitioner has filed this Revision Petition challenging the impugned order dated 07/05/2024 and impugned order dated 09/07/2024. It is contended that Respondent no 1 as a original Complainant has filed Original Consumer Complaint no 64/2024 before Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional. It is contended that the original Complainant and Respondent no. 2 were agreed to sale the flat to the Complainant. It is alleged that the original Complainant had made part payment to Respondent no 2 towards part payment of consideration. Since the Complainant did not get the flat as per the Agreement of Sale, he filed the original Consumer Complaint no 64/2024 before Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional.

2. It is further contended that the notice was issued to the Respondent on 07/05/2024 which was returnable on 09/07/2024. The applicant office has received notice on 27/05/2024 and it has instructed to the advocate of opponent to appear in the original Consumer Complaint. However, since the time to file the reply has expired as on 26/06/2024 the reply could not be filed by the Opponent. The District Commission on 09/07/2024 had passed an ex-parte order against the present Petitioner / Org. Opponent. It is further contended that in the Revision Petition that, the advocate on record Nishigandh Patil was instructed to appear before the Ld. District Commission, but due to some difficulty he had instructed his junior Anjali Kotecha to attend the case but she failed to appear before the District Commission. It is further contended that as per Section 42 of Maharashtra Slums Act

“No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the competent Authority or Against any person acting under its authority for anything which is in Good faith done or intended to be done under this act or the rules made thereunder”

and a concerned junior has annexed the letter that she did not keep follow up due to medical reason. Therefore, due to difficulty of advocate to appear before the District Commission, the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 was passed, which required to be set aside. Hence the present Petition is filed. It is prayed by the Petitioner to set aside the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 passed by the District Commission.

3. The notice was issued to respondent 1 & 2 and respondent nos. 1 & 2 appeared. The petitioner has moved an application for deleting Respondent nos. 3 & 4. The said application was allowed. After hearing both sides and perusal of the present petition and documents annexed along with the application we come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed as per the reasons given below:-

RESONNING:

4. Perused the annexure – 5 letter dated 14/08/2024 written by Anjali Kotecha addressed to Adv. Nishigandh Patil stating that due to the medical treatment of her in-laws she was unable to appear before the District Commission. We simultaneously perused the grounds of revision petition wherein it is contended that the concerned junior did not keep follow-up due to medical reason. The reasons mentioned in the letter and the application are different. The reasons in the letter is that she had medical emergency for her in-laws. No medical certificate of any person has been produced on record to show that why the advocate or his junior advocate fails to appear. Even in the petition nowhere it is mentioned pertaining to the Vakalatnama signed by the present petitioner before 26/06/2024.

5. It is admitted fact that the period for filing written statement in original complaint was over on 26/06/2024. The District Commission has waited till 09/07/2024 and passed an ex-parte order against the present applicant as none appeared for the applicant.

6. The applicant himself has chosen not to appear in time thereby the District Commiss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document