- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24.12.2001 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun rejecting the application of the applicant for the restoration of the complaint.
(2.) THE complainant has filed the complaint on 3.1.2001. No steps were taken by the complainant. Therefore, it was dismissed. The complainant was not present on 3.1.2001. He applied for recall of that order. According to the learned Forum, the application was moved on incorrect grounds because on 3.1,2001 what was to be done was the arguments of the case, no steps were to be taken. There is nothing to show that the application was time barred. There is nothing to show that on 3.1.2001, the opposite party was not present. The restoration application was moved the same day as is apparent from the affidavit of Shri Radhe Shyam Kashyap, the clerk of the learned counsel. There cannot appear any reason for the complainant to be absent on 3.1.2001 and again to apply for restoration the same day He has appeared in court on 3.1.03 itself but little late. The absence does not appear to be deliberate.
(3.) SINCE , both the parties were absent and the absence of the complainant was not deliberate, therefore, there was sufficient ground for the restoration of the complaint. Justice should not be only done or should also appear to have been done. It is just and proper that the parties should have been afforded full opportunity to be heard and then alone on merits, some judicial order should have been passed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.12.2001 is hereby set aside. The restoration application is allowed. The original complaint No. 177/96 is hereby restored to its original number. However, the learned Forum is directed to undertake fresh proceedings only after the service to the opposite party.;