- (1.) The instant application has been filed against the order dated 7th September, 2005 passed by the appellate Court in S.C. 195/A/2002.
(2.) Following the passing of the ex parte decree by the District Consumer Forum, an appeal was preferred. The appeal was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed period.
(3.) Referring to the ruling of Housing Board, Hyderabad v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association & Ors., reported in (1995)5 SCC 672, the learned lawyer for the petitioner has submitted that date of pronouncement of the order in open Court by itself cannot be the starting point for determining the period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act. It has to be shown that the order of the District Forum so pronounced, was duly signed and dated by the members of the District Forum constitution the Bench and the same was communicated to the parties, free of charge. It is contended that since the order of the District Forum was not communicated, the appeal could not be preferred earlier. The appeal was actually filed within the stipulated period of thirty days of obtaining the copy of the order of the District Forum as contended by Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner in his affidavit also challenged having any knowledge about the initiation of proceedings. On his making such assertion, the lower Court records were called for. The lower Court records revealed that the petitioner duly appeared before the District Forum and sought for time to file written statement. The lower Court records thus falsified the claim of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the initiation of proceedings.;