Prime Honda Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs The Legend Pvt. Ltd.

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 09.08.2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner/OP was dismissed in default due to non -appearance on the part of the petitioner as well as its counsel. Relevant order is reproduced thus: Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present to press this appeal despite repeated calls. Appeal dismissed in appellant''s default. File be consigned to record room.

Learned Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission has committed a grave irregularity in dismissing the appeal for non -prosecution despite of the fact that pursuant to the direction of the State Commission the petitioner/appellant had filed written submissions in support of its appeal. It is argued that once the written submissions were already on record, the State Commission ought to have decided the appeal on the basis of written arguments. The State Commission by failing to decide the appeal on merits has committed a grave irregularity resulting injustice to the petitioner. It is thus contended that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of the appeal on merits.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. According to the petitioner, prior to 09.08.2012, he had filed his written submissions with the State Commission. This fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Even otherwise also, petitioner has placed on record copy of his written arguments dated 15.03.2012 which were filed before the State Commission. From this, it is evident that much prior to the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had filed written submissions assailing the impugned order of the District Forum. That being the case, the State Commission has committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal for non prosecution instead of deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable. Revision petition is, accordingly, accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.12.2013. State Commission is requested to expedite the appeal and decide it preferable within six months.