The State Commission held that the rejection of a written version filed beyond the statutory period (including the discretionary extension) by the District Commission does not amount to a jurisdictional error or material irregularity, thus warranting no interference in a revision petition.

ORDER

Mr. Rajes Guha Ray, Judicial Member

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/ opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 namely Kotak Mahindra Bank, Park Street Branch and the Manager of said bank against the Respondent namely Dulal Dutta Banik against the impugned Order dated 11.07.2025 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit- II in case no. CC/157/2024 contending inter alia that the respondent /complainant filed aforesaid case alleging deficiency in service and praying for reliefs. The complaint was fixed for admission hearing on 06.09.2024, the complaint was admitted and next date was fixed on 22.10.2024 for appearance. On that day Ld. Advocate for the revisionists appeared and prayed for time for filing written version. There after due to official work the authorized person was out of station and he could not contact with Ld. Advocate for taking information. Lastly on 08.01.2025 the written version was filed. Thereafter the matter was fixed on 12.03.2025 and 13.05.2025 for acceptance of written version, but there was no quorum so, on 11.07.2025 Ld. Commission below by holding that the summons was served on 25.09.2024, fixed the matter in ex parte board and fixed on 23.09.2025 for filing evidence by complainant.

So, the Revisionists/ OP No., 1 & 2 have filed this Revision Petition inter alia on the following grounds.

i) That Ld. Commission below ought to have considered that 08.01.2025 was fixed for filing written version, when the written version was filed by the opposite party;

ii) that the Ld. Forum below erred in law in not considering the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & ors, where it has been specifically held that “it will be opened to the concerned Forum to accept the written version filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in appropriate case, on suitable terms, including payment of cost and to proceed with the matter” etc.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

2. The following points are to be considered for determination of this Revision Petition.

i) Whether Ld. Commission below has passed the impugned Order illegally or with material irregularity;

ii) whether the impugned Order deserves to be set aside;

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order under challenge in this Revision is reproduced as hereunder:

“Order No. 7 Date: 11.07.2025 Ld. Advocates for the complainant and the OP are present.

Today is fixed for acceptance of WV filed by the OP.

On scrutiny it appears from the preceding order that summon has been served to the OP on 25.09.2024 and the WV filed by the OP on 08.01.2025 which clearly indicates that WV was filed by the OP beyond the statutory period and as such WV filed by the OP cannot be accepted and let the case be proceeded ex parte against the OP.

To 23.09.2025 for filing evidence by the complainant.”

4. In the instant case the date of receipt of the notice on 25.09.2024 has not been denied. The written version was filed by the OPs i.e. Revisionists on 08.01.2025 after a period of about 94 days from the date of receipt of the notice i.e. beyond the statutory period of 30 days causing delay of about 64 days. However, Ld. Commission may extend that period for further 15 days. In as much as further extension of time for filing written version is a matter of discretion of concerned Ld. Commission and so if such discretionary power is exercised by not allowing the extended period, it cannot be inferred that the Ld. Commission has acted without jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction conferred on it or has act