JUDGEMENT
(Passed on 29.11.2012)
Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal is directed against the judgement & order dtd.03.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Misc. Application No.MA/07/152.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
1. Respondent No.1 / complainant Surendra Shivhare had filed Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/92/603 against Managing Director, (Mr Arun Patel) PICPL Ltd. and Jt. General Manager (Mr J J Bhatt) The Stock Exchange. The same complaint came to be partly allowed vide order dtd.27.10.1994, directing the o.ps to deliver the share certificates to the complainant and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.23,000/-, etc. Thereafter, in the year 2004 complainant Surendra has filed execution proceeding in the City Civil Court, Mumbai against the appellant – Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai (BSE) and the notice of that execution proceeding was served on the appellant. On receipt of the notice the appellant BSE appeared before the City Civil Court, Mumbai and also before the Forum, at Nagpur, challenging the order passed in Consumer Complaint on the ground that as execution proceeding is illegal as the BSE was not the party to the complaint, etc and submitted to set aside that order. By way of abundant precaution delay condonation application was also filed. On receipt of notice respondent / org. complainant – Surendra appeared and challenged the delay condonation application. On hearing both the sides the Forum vide impugned order dtd.03.11.2007 dismissed the delay condonation application, holding that it has no power to set aside its own exparte order and there is also no proper explanation for condonation of delay, etc.
2. Feeling aggrieved by that order BSE has filed this appeal.
3. We heard counsel for both the sides at length and perused the record.
4. It is submitted by Mr V K Deshmukh Ld. Counsel for the appellant that BSE was not party to the original complaint but execution proceeding was filed by the complainant and on receipt of notice of execution proceeding it appeared before the City Civil Court, Mumbai and resisted the execution proceeding and simultaneously it approached District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and by filing an application requested to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum, on the ground that the appellant BSE was not the party to the complaint but the execution proceeding is filed against it, etc. On hearing both the sides the Forum observed that since the order passed in Consumer Complaint is exparte against the BSE , it has no power to set aside its own exparte order. It is observed that as per Provision of Sec. 22(A) of CPA National Commission only has power to set aside exparte orders and further delay condonation application cannot be considered, etc.
5. In keeping with this finding, the Forum rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently the application for setting aside the order passed in Consumer Complaint also appears to be dismissed, though there is no specific order.
6. It is submitted by Mr Deshmukh, Ld. Counsel for the a
Back
