Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1119 (RAJ)

Tula Ram v. Narendra Kumar

2005-04-12

SUNIL KUMAR GARG, SUSHMA TANWAR

body2005
Judgment S.K. Garg, J.-Heard at admission stage. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1,CPC has been filed by the revisionist petitioner with a prayer that the order dated 012.2004 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 35/2004 (Tula Ram vs. Prem Motors) be re-called and set aside. 2. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no doubt the revision petition was fixed for hearing on 012.2004 but on 012.2004 an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner that due to some reason the case be adjourned which was fixed on 012.2004. It was further stated in the petition that since an application for adjournment had already been moved, therefore, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 012.2004 and the impugned order dated 012.2004 was passed in his absence and, therefore, that order be reviewed and re-called. For convenience the order dated 012.2004 is reproduced here: "Mr. D.M. Mathur Counsel for the appellant Prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the respondent rejected. Heard. After his claim had been accepted upto the level of National Commission, the appellant sought enforcement of the basic order as merged in the appellate order of the State Commission and the revisional order of the National Commission. By his application dated 10.05.2004 he prayed for attachment of the property of the respondent as per mandate contained in Section 25(3) of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act). The Forum has however, rejected his application on the ground that the provisions of the Act do not contemplate such mode of enforcement of the orders of the cogressal agencies under the Act. The Forum has however, rejected his application on the ground that the provisions of the Act do not contemplate such mode of enforcement of the orders of the cogressal agencies under the Act. Section 25 (3) of the Act reads as under: "(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue); A bare reading of the above provision would inform one that the basic order made by a redressal agency under the provisions of the Act may be enforced by issuing a certificate to the Collector of the district concerned for the amount to be realised as land revenue from the respondent. The Forum has mis-directed itself in not appreciating the nature of the proceedings under the Act in right perspective. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the Forum with a direction to issue the requisite certificate for the amount to be realised as land revenue to the District Collector, Bharatpur in terms of Section 25(3) of the Act. Parties to appear before the District Forum on 10.01.2005." 3. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 012.2004 reveals that the prayer for adjournment on behalf of the present petitioner was rejected and after that the order was passed not only on merits but the impugned order dated 15.05.2004 passed by the District Forum, Bharatpur was set aside and the matter was remanded back and parties were directed to appear before the District Forum on 10.01.2005. 4. Thus it cannot be concluded that the impugned order dated 012.2004 which is sought to be reviewed was passed on merits by this Commission. 5. The question arises whether this Commission has power to review its own order or not. This question was answered by Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. 4. Thus it cannot be concluded that the impugned order dated 012.2004 which is sought to be reviewed was passed on merits by this Commission. 5. The question arises whether this Commission has power to review its own order or not. This question was answered by Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. vs. Bombay Hospital Trust, dated 22.01.1999 reported in 1999 (III) CPJ 1 (SC) where it was clearly held that the State Commission cannot re-call an order passed by it ex-parte because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not specifically conferred this power on the commission. Since, the above law it has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, therefore, the present application filed under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 6. It is also well settled that the consumer Redressal Fora have no power to set aside or review their own orders as no such power is conferred under the CPC Act, 1986. Apart from that the order in question to be reviewed was passed on merits. Therefore, the question of setting aside does not arise. 7. For the reasons mentioned above the present application for review of re-calling the order dated 012.2004 by this Commission stands rejected.