GREEN CHANNEL CHIT FUND And FINANCE CO. vs V.K. JAIN

ABOVE mentioned applications have been filed on behalf of the applicant for restoration of the revision petitions, dismissed in default vide order dated 22.1.2004. By this order we shall be disposing of the same.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the applicant had filed the above said revision petitions against the order of the learned District Forum dated 6.6.2003 and 10.7.2003 which were listed on 6.1.2004 before this Commission and it was stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent that he had no objection if the case is remanded back to the District Forum for passing necessary orders aftering hearing the petitioner. Thereafter the case was listed for 22.1.2004. However, no one appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner on 22.1.2004 and as such the above mentioned revision petitions was dismissed in default on account of non-appearance of the petitioner. The applicant thereafter moved the present applications for restoration of the case dismissed in default vide orders/proceedings dated 22.1.2004. On perusal of the record of the case it is observed that these revision petitions were earlier also dismissed in default for non-appearance of the petitioner on 3.5.2003. On an application dated 3.11.2003 filed on behalf of the petitioner the same were restored to its original number vide orders/proceedings dated 6.11.2003. Thereafter the petitioner has defaulted a second time on 22.1.2004 and as such the present applications have been moved for restoration of the revision petitions on the ground that the applicant was under the impression that since the respondent had made a statement before this Commission on 6.1.2004 regarding his consent for cross-examination, there was no need for his appearance before this Commission on 22.1.2004. It has also been stated that the Counsel for the petitioner also could not appear on the said date on account of his being busy at the District Courts. A reply has been filed to the said application on behalf of the respondent. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties. The reason assigned by the applicant for his non-appearance on 22.1.2004 is far from convincing and in no way constitutes sufficient ground for the non-appearance of the revision petitioner or his Counsel. Furthermore, the revision petitions were dismissed in default vide orders/proceedings dated 22.1.2004 whereas the present applications have been filed only on that is after considerable delay, though the applicant has admitted in para 7 of his application that he came to know of the order of dismissal on 17/18.2.2004. Furthermore, the revision petitions have been filed by M/s. Green Channel Chit Fund and Finance Co. whereas the applications under consideration have been signed by one Shri Vikas Chopra without disclosing, as to how he is competent to file the restoration applications on behalf of the revision petitioner. Accordingly these applications are not maintainable.

Furthermore, the petitioner had filed revisions before the Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 644 of 2004 entitled M/s. Green Channel Chit Fund and Finance Co. v. Shri V.K. Jain, Revision Petition No. 645 of 2004, M/s. Green Channel Chit Fund and Finance Co. v. Shri Sanjeev Jain, Revision Petition No. 646 of 2004, M/s. Green Channel Chit Fund and Finance Co. v. Shri Sanjay Jain, Revision Petition No. 647 of 2004, M/s. Green Channel Chit Fund and Finance Co. v. Shri Papil Jain, and Revision Petition No. 648 of 2004 and M/s. Green Channel Chit Fund and Finance Co. v. Shri Papil Jain, which were dismissed by the Hon''ble National Commission with the following observations: "It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that final arguments are heard by the District Forum. As it is open to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the District Forum by filing appeal before the State Commission by raising the contentions which are sought to be raised in these revision petitions, these revision petitions are dismissed."

IN view of the above said orders, the present revision petitions which are sought to be restored, have become in fructuous. Therefore, the applications for restoration of the revisions petitions, filed on behalf of the applicant, are directed to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. R.Ps. dismissed.