- (1.) Issue notice.
(2.) There is an apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited vs. Corporation Bank, 2002 6 SCC 33, Kailash Vs. Nankhu, 2005 4 SCC 480, Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, 2005 6 SCC 344 on the one hand and J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, 2002 6 SCC 635 and NIA Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage,2014 AIOL 4615 on the other in so far as the power of the Courts to extend time for filing of written statement/reply to a complaint is concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decisions take the view that the relevant provisions including those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are directory in nature and the Courts concerned have the power to extend time for filing the written statement. The second line of decisions which are also of coordinate Benches however takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time for filing a reply there is no such power.
(3.) Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgment. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two-Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three-Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate Benches comprising three Judges a reference to three Judges may not suffice.;