AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 12.04.2018 of the State Commission in revision no. 56 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 16.04.2015 of the District Commission in complaint no. 173 of 2014.
We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. No one is present for the respondent.
The case is of alleged medical negligence. The short point involved herein relates to the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction. The District Commission at Maharajganj vide its Order dated 16.04.2015 arrived at the conclusion that the cause of action in part arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The State Commission made its independent appraisal and vide its impugned Order dated 12.04.2018 arrived at the same conclusion that the cause of action in part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the said District Commission.
During the course of the arguments learned counsel for the revisionist requests for an interlude to seek instructions. After an interlude learned counsel submits on instructions that the revisionist wishes to withdraw its revision unconditionally.
In the wake of the above submission the present revision no. 2113 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn, without the option to file it again before this Commission.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission at Maharajganj immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.