Archana Thakral vs Gtm Builders And Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

THIS Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 5.1.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. C-326/2011, Dr. Archana Thakral v. GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., by which, complaint was dismissed in default. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as Appeal was dismissed for default, it may be restored, whereas, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that Memo of Appeal has not been signed by Appellant, but signed by his Counsel, hence, appeal be dismissed. Perusal of impugned order reveals that complaint was dismissed in default of complainant. It appears that learned State Commission had not issued notice to the respondent till dismissal of complaint. In such circumstances, there was no necessity to issue notice of Memo of Appeal to the respondent. It appears that in routine, notice was issued to the respondent and he has also filed reply to the Memo of Appeal and was heard in consequence of notice issued to him though there was no necessity to hear him.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that as Memo of Appeal has been signed by his Counsel instead of Appellant himself, hence Appeal may be dismissed. This issue is devoid of force because Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC provides that Memo of Appeal may be signed either by the Appellant or by his Pleader. Thus, it becomes clear that Memo of Appeal signed by Pleader cannot be rejected merely because it was not signed by the Appellant himself. When law permits signing of appeal either by Pleader or by the Party himself, then Memo of Appeal signed by Pleader cannot be rejected. As Appeal has been filed within 25 days of dismissal of complaint, we deem it proper to allow the appeal and restore the complaint at its original number.

CONSEQUENTLY , appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 5.12.2012 passed by learned State Commission is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to respondent, within two weeks, and complaint No. C -326/2011 is restored at its original number. Complainant is directed to appear before the State Commission, Delhi, on 22.3.2013.