ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) (Oral) - Appeal No. 406/2007 has been directed against the order dated 4.4.2007, whereby application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, seeking setting aside ex parte order dated 15.5.2006, disposing of the Complaint No. 147/2005 on merits has been dismissed, as well as to set aside the said final order as well passed in the complaint, (i.e. of 15.5.2006). 2.Alongwith the appeal, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay in filing appeal against order to set aside the order dated 4.4.2007, and thereafter permitting the appellant to place on record the written statement and then after hearing the parties to dispose of the complaint on its merits. 3.We are constrained to observe, that in our considered opinion, a single appeal against both the orders is not maintainable. This is one ground to reject the submission of Dr. Sharma. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that single appeal is maintainable, then no case is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the ex parte order dated 15.5.2006 whereby complaint was allowed on merits. No explanation is given in the application as to why, and for what reason the filing of appeal was delayed. 4.On a question of law we may clarify that when an order is passed either by the District Forum or by this Commission by a speaking and reasoned order, it ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain the application to review/recall the same. Power, if any, vests with the National Commission. Admittedly, ex parte order has been passed by the District Forum below, determining the complaint on its merits. 5.Faced with this situation, Dr. Sharma submitted that whatever was possible, his client did its best by engaging a counsel and by imparting instructions to him. As such for the lapse/failure of the counsel,a client like the appellant should not suffer. Looking to the development of law on this aspect, we hardly need to advised the appellant-Company as to what are the remedies open to it if this is factually correct. Though we are not expressing any opinion on this aspect of the case. 6.Number of decisions has been cited Dr. Looking to the development of law on this aspect, we hardly need to advised the appellant-Company as to what are the remedies open to it if this is factually correct. Though we are not expressing any opinion on this aspect of the case. 6.Number of decisions has been cited Dr. Sharma for allowing this appeal on merits and consequently remanding the case to the District Forum below with a direction to it to decide the same afresh after allowing the appellant to file its reply and after affording opportunity of hearing to parties. We find no substance in this submission and the same is rejected. 7.To be fair to Dr. Sharma we should deal with the decisions cited by Dr. Sharma. 8.First decision relied upon by Dr. Sharma was in the case of Escorsts Limited and another v. Harachat Bai and others, 2005(2) CPJ 123 (NC). In this case application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte order was disallowed by the State Commission. It was set aside by National Commission because addresses as given in the complaint was incomplete and opposite parties were not served in appeal. In this background, it was held that the order having been passed behind the back of the opposite parties. Thus while remanding the case, appeal was allowed. This judgment is on its own facts. In addition to this, in the appeal before us it is admitted case of the appellant that after due service, it had engaged a counsel who did not appear and thereafter complaint was decided on merits. Thereafter application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed. Consequently ratio laid down in the decision of National Commission has no applicability the facts before us in the present appeal. 9.Next decision relied upon by Dr. Sharma was in the case of Banarsi Dass Mahesh Kumar v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another, 2006(1) CPJ 110 (HP) : 2005(Suppl.) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) 269. Again this decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Reason being that in this case, complaint was filed before the State Commission which was disposed of on the ground that because the matter was under consideration with the Insurance Company, as such no final adjudication could be made on merits. Accordingly, the opposite party was directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 3 months. Reason being that in this case, complaint was filed before the State Commission which was disposed of on the ground that because the matter was under consideration with the Insurance Company, as such no final adjudication could be made on merits. Accordingly, the opposite party was directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 3 months. Liberty was however reserved to him to approach the concerned Forum/Court in the matter afresh subject to the decision of accordingly. In this background after decision of the case by the opposite party, prayer was made for restoration of the original complaint wherein this order was passed for its revival. In this background, it was held that application was not maintainable. This decision again has no applicability to the facts of the appeal before us. 10.Dr. Sharma also referred to the case of Kamal Textiles and Printing Industries v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2007(II) CPJ 1 (NC). This decision is again distinguishable on its fact. In this case Financial Corporation who had financed the Industrial Unit, is exercise of its powers vested under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 had taken over the same. Thereafter fire broke out, and when claim was lodged for being indemnified defence of the Insurance Company, with that the Financial Corporation had no insurable interest. In this background order of the State Commission was set aside at the mere taking over the possession by the Financial Commission does not divest ownership or title over the property, because Corporation acts as a Trustee for Industrial concern and for all purposes insurable interest remains of the insured. This decision in our opinion has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case and thus is wholly inapplicable. 11.Last case relied upon by Dr. Sharma is of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 606. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for setting aside an ex parte award, Tribunal was competent as it does not amount to review and it does not become functus officio provided application was filed within 30 days of publication of award. This decision again in our opinion does not advance the case of the appellant. Reason being that ex parte award in the case was on 15.5.2006, whereas application for setting aside was filed on 7.8.2006. This decision again in our opinion does not advance the case of the appellant. Reason being that ex parte award in the case was on 15.5.2006, whereas application for setting aside was filed on 7.8.2006. 12.Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah and others v. Bombay Hospital Trust, 1999(4) Supreme Court Cases 325 costs at the root of the case of the appellant as also supports the view that ex parte order passed by the State Commission cannot be recalled or reviewed and it has no jurisdiction to set aside its previous ex parte order. More so, when it is a reasoned one and in this case action of the State Commission was not held to be permissible under law. To similar effect is the decision of the National Commission in the case of Director, Forest Research Institute v. M/s. Sunshine Enterprises and another, 1997(1) CPR 42 N.C. As such none of the above cited decisions cited on behalf of the appellant has any applicability in the facts of this appeal, as such submission of Dr. Sharma based on these precedents (supra) is hereby rejected. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of costs. Appeal dismissed. M.R.B. ———————