JUDGMENT :- The appellant which is a Co-operative House Building Society had filed a complaint against the respondent which was allowed by the District Forum by its judgment and order dated 7-2-1996/15-2-1996 against which the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by its judgment dated 17-10-1996. The respondent filed a revision before the National Commission which was dismissed in default on 8-12-1998. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order dated 8-12-1998 by which the 3590 revision was dismissed in default. This application was allowed by order dated 21-1-1999 and the order dismissing the revision in default was recalled and the revision was restored to its original number. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 2. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the rules made thereunder for restoration of a revision which is dismissed in default. Reliance for this purpose was placed on the decision of this Court in Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust, (1999) 4 SCC 325 . Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has contended that the revision was dismissed on account of the mistake of the Commission itself and the Commission shall be deemed to possess the inherent power to correct its mistake in recalling the order and restoring the revision to its original number. It is contended that the act of the Court will not prejudice any party is the basic principle of the administration of justice. It is contended that in this case as the facts set out in the application would indicate that the Commission and its office had committed a mistake in not intimating the counsel, engaged by the respondent, of the date fixed for hearing of the revision and, therefore, the counsel could not appear on that date and the revision was dismissed in default. It is also stated that even in the cause list the name of the counsel was not shown. 3. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties we may set out the facts mentioned in the application for restoration as under :- "2. It is also stated that even in the cause list the name of the counsel was not shown. 3. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties we may set out the facts mentioned in the application for restoration as under :- "2. That the brief facts for deciding the present application are given below :- i) 15-10-98 : That the present case was earlier fixed on 15-10-98 before this Honble Commission for hearing and was adjourned for filing replies and rejoinder by the parties without fixing any particular date of next hearing, as per the practice of this Honble Court that the next date of hearing is always intimated to the counsel of both the parties by the Registry of this Honble Court by post. It may be clarified here that in fact, the petitioner-Improvement Trust, Ludhiana initially engaged Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar as their Advocates at the time of filing of the present Review Petition No. 1359/96 but since Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Advocate had not appeared on the last date of hearing i.e. 15-10-98 and refused to appear in the present case due to other engagements, therefore, the Petitioner-Trust decided to change its Advocate in the present case and accordingly after taking no objection certification from their previous counsel, engaged a new counsel Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate in the present case and vide letter dated 29-10-98 authorised Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate to appear in the present case on behalf of Improvement Trust. ii) 2-11-98 : That on 2-11-98 Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate filed Power of Attorney before the Registry of this Honble National Commission on behalf of the petitioner Improvement-Trust along with his address written on the Power of Attorney and the Registry of this Honble Commission duly acknowledged/stamped the duplicate copy of the index of filing Power of Attorney. A copy of the said acknowledgement dt. 2-11-1998 given by this Honble Commission to the new Advocate Sh. Pardeep Gupta is annexed hereto with this application as Annexure A-1. iii) That since as per the well-known practice of this Honble National Commission, in each and every case, every next date of hearing is being intimated by post to the Counsel of both the parties, so accordingly Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate was awaiting the letter from Registry of this Honble Commission to appear on the next date of hearing. iii) That since as per the well-known practice of this Honble National Commission, in each and every case, every next date of hearing is being intimated by post to the Counsel of both the parties, so accordingly Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate was awaiting the letter from Registry of this Honble Commission to appear on the next date of hearing. It is specifically mentioned here that till date neither Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate, nor the petitioner-Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was informed by the Registry of this Honble Commission about the date, in question, fixed i.e. 8-12-98. It may also be clarified here that the earlier counsel of the Petitioner-Improvement Trust had also not informed about the next date of hearing to the petitioner-Trust nor to their newly appointed counsel Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate. iv) Hence, the non-appearance of Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate counsel for the petitioner for the date fixed i.e. 8-12-98 is solely due to the fact that he was not informed by the Registry of this Honble Commission about the said date fixed nor Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate was aware about 3591 the said date fixed by any source. v) It may also be clarified here that though two other Review Petitions Nos. 729 and 730 of 1998 were also fixed for hearing on the same day i.e. 8-12-98 filed by the petitioner- Trust in a different case but since the petitioner-Trust was to seek time for filing the rejoinder in the said cases, so accordingly, Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate requested his associate Advocate Sh. Rattan Lal to make a request on his behalf before this Honble National Commission for adjournment of these two Review Petitions Nos. 729 and 730 of 1998 and accordingly the said request was accepted and the said cases were adjourned. Since two other following cases of Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate, were fixed before the Honble High Court of Delhi i.e. in Court No. 2 Item Nos. 2 & 3 Court No. 5, Item No. 30 so as per the planning Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate straightway rushed to the High Court to attend those cases and Sh. Rattan Lal, Advocate, was requested to appear before this Honble National Commission for attending the above mentioned two Review Petitions Nos. 729 and 730 of 1998. 2 & 3 Court No. 5, Item No. 30 so as per the planning Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate straightway rushed to the High Court to attend those cases and Sh. Rattan Lal, Advocate, was requested to appear before this Honble National Commission for attending the above mentioned two Review Petitions Nos. 729 and 730 of 1998. In these two cases, the Registry of this Honble Court sent a letter about the said date fixed i.e. 8-12-98 to the counsel for the petitioner-Trust i.e. Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate but no letter was sent for the present case, in question. It may also be mentioned here that even in the Daily List put up on the Notice Board, the name of the newly appointed counsel Pardeep Gupta was not shown and the name of the earlier counsel Mr. Nikhil Nayyar was shown. Moreover, the parties name i.e. of the respondent was not shown in full i.e. instead of The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the list stated "The Shahdeed Co-op. House Building Society Ltd." Secondly, in the absence of intimation about the date fixed i.e. 8-12-98 to the newly appointed counsel of the petitioner-Trust i.e. Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate, the absence of the petitioner or his counsel is bona fide one and not intentional one. If Sh. Pardeep Gutpa, Advocate, would have come to know about the date fixed i.e. 8-12-98, in the present case, he would have certainly instructed his Associate Sh. Rattan Lal to appear in the present case also as he was appearing in other cases before this National Commission on the same date i.e. 8-12-98. Hence, the non-appearance is a genuine one and not intentional." 4. A reply to this application was filed on behalf of the appellant in which it was inter alia, stated as under :- "1. That the present application of the petitioners is devoid of any merits and needs to be rejected as no good reasons have been advanced by the petitioners in support of their contentions for restoration of the Revision Petition to its original number. The petitioners, on the earlier date i.e. on 15-10-1998, had also sought adjournment and they again defaulted in their appearance on 8-12-1998 when the case was listed for Final hearing. The respondent Societys representatives, along with their Counsel, were present on both the said dates. 2. The petitioners, on the earlier date i.e. on 15-10-1998, had also sought adjournment and they again defaulted in their appearance on 8-12-1998 when the case was listed for Final hearing. The respondent Societys representatives, along with their Counsel, were present on both the said dates. 2. That it is evident that the petitioners were not diligent and were rather negligent in putting in their appearance on the notified date when almost a months prior notice was given by the Honble Commission to both the parties. The petitioners had obtained an ex parte stay of the order of the State Commission from this Honble Commission on 15-1-1997 and, therefore, ought to have been very vigilant in pursuing the proceedings. 3. That it may be stated that the Registry of this Honble Commission, after the case had been adjourned on 15-10-1999, had issued notice on 13-11-1998 to the Counsels for both the parties that the case would be listed for final hearing on 8-12-1998. This notice was duly served on the counsel for the petitioners. It is stated in the application under reply that the petitioners had decided to change their advocate and accordingly after taking No Objection Certificate from the previous Counsel, another advocate, Shri Pardeep Gupta was engaged. No Objection Certificate has been placed on record. What apepars from the record of the Registry is that a power of attorney was filed by Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners in the case on 2-11-1998. However, no communication was given to the Registry of this Honble Commission by the petitioners that they have revoked the engagement of the previous counsel and all notices henceforth should be served on Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate. Shri Pradeep Gupta, Advocate, also did not tell the Registry of this Honble Commission that henceforth notices meant for the petitioners 3592 should be served on him and not on the counsel whose power of attorney was already existing on the record. It usually happens that a party in a case engages more than one advocate and, therefore, merely because Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate was also engaged in the case, the Registry of this Honble Commission could not have inferred from that alone that the authority of the previous counsel had been revoked. It usually happens that a party in a case engages more than one advocate and, therefore, merely because Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate was also engaged in the case, the Registry of this Honble Commission could not have inferred from that alone that the authority of the previous counsel had been revoked. As no intimation was given to the Registry of this Honble Commission revoking the power of attorney of Shri Nikhil Nayyar, the Registry cannot be faulted in not issuing notice to Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate for the date fixed i.e. for 8-12-1998 and in issuing notice to Shri Nikhil Nayyar, Advocate which was duly served on him. It is stated in the application that the earlier counsel of the petitioners did not inform the petitioners or the newly appointed counsel Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate about the next date of hearing. It is also stated that Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate was not aware about the said date of 8-12-1998 fixed in the case. In this situation, it was only proper that Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate should have filed his affidavit affirming the said facts. This has not been done. On the other hand, an affidavit of a legal assistant working in the office of the petitioners has been filed which affidavit is defective in itself and the said legal assistant could not have deposed about the facts which are in the personal knowledge of Shri Pardeep Gupta, Advocate alone. 4. That it is entirely incorrect on the part of the petitioners to put blame on the Registry of this Honble Commission for not sending the notice to the new counsel for the date 8-12-1998. It was not enough for the petitioners to just engage a new counsel and ask him to file his power of attorney in the Registry of this Honble Commission but it was also their duty to inform the Registry of this Hon. Commission that they had revoked the authority of the previous counsel and, therefore, all intimations henceforth should be sent to their newly appointed counsel. This has not been done and the petitioners have been grossly negligent in pursuing their case. It is incorrect that the absence of the petitioners or their counsel on 8-12-1998 is bona fide or unintentional or that the order dated 8-12-1998 dismissing the case in default requires to be set aside." 5. This has not been done and the petitioners have been grossly negligent in pursuing their case. It is incorrect that the absence of the petitioners or their counsel on 8-12-1998 is bona fide or unintentional or that the order dated 8-12-1998 dismissing the case in default requires to be set aside." 5. From the facts set out above it would be seen that although the revision was filed through M/s. Indira Jaisingh and Nikhil Nayyar, they for the reasons set out above, did not appear in the case and refused to appear on the ground of their other engagements. Consequently, the respondent engaged Shri Pardeep Gupta and filed his power of attorney. But the notice of the hearing of the revision was not issued to Mr. Pradeep Gupta, nor was his name shown in the daily cause list of the National Commission. It was in this situation that Mr. Pardeep Gupta cold not appear before the National Commission and the revision was dismissed in default. There is thus a mistake on the part of the Commission in not issuing notice of the date fixed to Mr. Pardeep Gupta and in not showing his name in the cause list. Since it was a mistake of the Commission on account of which the revision was dismissed in default, the Commission was justified in recalling its order and restoring the revision to its original number. That being so, the decision relied upon (supra) by the appellants is not applicable to the present case and is distinguishable on facts. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No costs. CA 4609/1999. 6. As Civil Appeal No. 4608/99 is dismissed, this apepal is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed. FOR CITATION AIR 2000 SC 3589