AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ONLY question raised in this Revision Petition is whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the case without taking into consideration the written version filed by the opposite party (OP). In order to appreciate this question, ONLY a few facts need be stated.
THE complainant sent some gas stoves to M/s. Giri Enterprises Thrissur, Kerala on 25.10.1993 through Economical Transport Organisation (ETO). THE documents were routed through Lord Krishna Bank, Thrissur, the Banker of the consignee with instructions to the Bank to release the goods on payment. Lateron, the instructions were revised and the Bank advised to release the goods on payment of a post-dated cheque for Rs. 23,055/-. THE goods were accordingly released by the Bank on payment of the cheque which was duly forwarded by the Bank to the complainant. THE cheque was, however, returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds THE case of the complainant was that the Bank had accepted the cheque contrary to the express instructions of the complainant that the cheque should be good for payment. THE District Forum held that inspite of service of notice, the opposite party, namely the Lord Krishna Bank failed to appear or file its written version. Accordingly the complaint was allowed by an ex parte order now before us. THE opposite party feels aggrieved and has preferred this revision. It has been stated that the opposite party, revision petitioner herein, received notice from District Forum for appearance on 10.5.1995. Written version of the respondent raising several pleas was sent by Registered Post on 26.4.1995, well before the date of hearing. As later enquiries revealed, the said registered article was delivered in the office of District Forum-II on 1.5.1995. Without considering the said reply, however, the present order was passed on the supposition that the opposite party failed to file any written version. The revision petitioner has placed on record copy of the letter dated 26.4.1995 from Postal Authorities confirming that the registered envelope sent by the Bank had been delivered to the addressee, the District Forum on 1.5.1995.
The complainant has been arrayed as respondent in the revision. Inspite of notices, none appeared. We have, therefore, gone through the records as none appeared on either side when the revision came-up for hearing.
FROM the material placed on record, two facts have been established: one that a written version was received in the office of District Forum on 1.5.1995 and two that the said written version was not taken into consideration and the present order passed ex parte on the supposition that the written version was filed by the opposite party. This has resulted in failure of justice inasmuch as the District Forum failed to take into consideration and deal with the various pleas raised in the written version of the opposite party. We, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the order and direct the District Forum- II to readmit the complaint against its original number, have on record the written version filed by the opposite party, revision petitioner herein, and dispose of the case according to law. In case the reply sent by post is not readily traceable, the revision petitioner shall be allowed to file a copy of the reply and the matter dealt with as stated above. The parties shall appear before the District Forum-II on 15th June, 1998. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum-II. Revision Petition allowed.