ANUPAM DASGUPTA, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 5th April 2011 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the State Commission). By this order, the State Commission disposed of the appeal of the complainant/respondent no.1 with the direction that he would be entitled to receive, from the petitioner, interest on the deposit of Rs.1,85,805/- @ 8% per annum from 13.04.2005 till realisation, thus modifying the date of commencement of interest entitlement to 13.04.2005 instead of 29.08.2008, as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat (in short, the District Forum) in its order dated 29.07.2009 on the complaint filed by respondent no.1.
(2.)AFTER hearing the counsel for the petitioner/opposite party (OP) no.1, , notice was issued limited to the point whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest on Rs.1,85,805/- should be awarded with effect from 28.08.2008, as ordered by the District Forum.
We have heard Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania and Mr. Tilak Mitra learned counsel for the petitioner/OP and respondent/complainant respectively and Ms. Shalini Shah for SEBI and perused the records.

Mr. Mitra was allowed to and has filed a copy of the certificate dated 29.08.2008 issued by the United Bank of India, Kamarhati Bazar Branch, Kolkata, in the context of the relevant consumer complaint which clearly shows that the last payment made by the respondent no.1/complainant to the petitioner was indeed dated 13.04.2005. Mr. Mitra has further stated that this document was produced before the District Forum but somehow escaped its notice. The apparent error was accordingly corrected by the State Commission in its impugned order.

(3.)ON the other hand, Mr. Singhania has, without permission, filed several documents though he was allowed with reference to the limited notice, to only to respond to the above-mentioned contention of Mr. Mitra and the document produced by him. The thrust of Mr. Singhanias argument is mainly that the petitioner was unable to produce evidence before the District Forum and, therefore, the matter should be remanded back for fresh adjudication after allowing the petitioner to produce evidence.
It is clearly seen from the order of the District Forum that while OPs no. 2 and 3 contested the complaint of respondent no.1/complainant by filing written version and evidence on affidavit, petitioner (which was OP 1 before the District Forum) remained absent. It is not the case of Mr. Singhania that the petitioner (OP 1) was not duly served. In such a situation, it is entirely impermissible for him to seek to file documents at the stage of hearing of the revision petition. These documents cannot, therefore, be considered nor is it permissible for the counsel for the petitioner to urge re-adjudication at this stage, in the circumstances of the petitioners clear failure, without any reason, to appear before the District Forum at the appropriate time.