AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE main grievance of the revision in this revision is that vide the impugned order the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) had deprived the opportunity of cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits filed by the other side to the revisionists and the evidence of the revisionists which is an educational institution has been closed. THE learned Counsel Ms. Taruna Chawla, Advocate contended that the revisionists have also not been given an opportunity to controvert the evidence led by the O.P. by filing an affidavit by way of rejoinder. Although she fairly admitted that no such application had been moved before the District Forum but justified her grievance on the ground that the evidence had already been closed by the District Forum.
AFTER hearing Ms. Taruna Chawla, Advocate and perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the revisionists can avail of an opportunity of moving an appropriate application before the District Forum for leading evidence in the shape of affidavit by way of rejoinder to the version put up by the other side and in case such an application is moved by the revisionist, the same be taken up for consideration and decided in accordance with law. Consequently, this revision is disposed of by relegating the revisionists to the remedy indicated above for seeking leave of the District Forum to file evidence by way of rejoinder in the shape of affidavit which shall of course be decided by the District Forum according to law. Copy of this order be handed over to the learned Counsel for the revisionist. Revision disposed of.