TOPLINE SHOES LTD. versus CORPORATION BANK

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1167 · Decided: 08-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
' 
TOPLINE SHOES LTD. 
v. 
CORPORATION BANK 
JULY 8, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986~~ection I 3(2)(a)-Reply-Filing a/-
Grant of time by forum beyond a total period of 45 days-Power of-Held, 
A 
B 
the forum could grant time to the opposite party to file reply beyond a total C 
period of 45 days, the provi:,ion prescribing limit/or filing repb' being directo!J' 
in nature-Thus, on facts even though the opposite party filed reply beyond 
a total period of 45 days, reply could not be rejected 
In this appeal, the question before this Court was whether in view 
of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the State D 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could grant time to the 
respondent for file his reply, beyond a total period of 45 days and whether 
the provision prescribing limit for filing reply is mandatory or dir-cctory 
in nature. 
Appellant contended that the state Commission had not power to E 
accept a reply filed beyond a total period of 45 days and the discretion 
vested in the forum/commission to extend the time cannot be exercised 
from time to time since that would frustrate the purpose of the provision 
itself. 
Respondent contended that the provision fixing a period for F 
submission of reply is only procedural in nature and it cannot be 
interpreted in a manner so as to deprive a party the opportunity of being 
heard on merits of his case. It also submitted the respondent had filed his 
reply within the time allowed and extension was sought only once, thus 
there, was no occasion to plead that the reply be rejected. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Section 13 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
makes it clear that the District Forum would give time of 30 day; to the 
opposite party for the purposes of giving his version. An extension of time H 
1167 
1168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A for filing reply could be granted but not exceeding 15 days. The total 
period during which the reply can be filed is 45 days . After extension of 
fifteen days is granted, Thus the intention to provide a time frame to file 
reply, is really meant to expedite the hearing of such matters and to avoid 
unnecessary adjournments to linger on the proceedings on the pretext of 
B filing reply. The provision however, as framed, does not indicate that it is 
mandatory in nature. In case the extended time exceeds 15 days, no penal 
consequences are prescribed therefor. The period of extension of time not 
exceeding 15 days "does not prescribe any kind of period of limitation. 
The provision appears to b.e directory in nature, whic·h the consumer 
forums are ordinarily supposed to apply, in the proceedings before them. 
C It does not mean that orders extending the time to file reply may be passed 
repeatedly unmindful of and totally ignoring the provision that the 
extension may not exceed 15 days. This provision has always to be kept 
in mind while passing an order extending the time to file a reply to the 
petition. 11171-G, H; 1172-D, E; 1175-D, E) 
D 
2. In the instant case at that first instance the Commission itself had 
fixed the date beyond 30 days and the respondent sought further time 
which prayer was accepted and next date was fixed. The respondent filed 
his reply on the date fixed. In such circumstances there was no occasion 
to contend that the reply of the respondent should be rejected. Also there 
E is no force in the submission that in no event whatsoever, the reply of the 
respondent could be taken on record beyond the period of 45 days. The 
provision is more by way. of procedure to achieve the object of speedy 
disposal of such disputes. It is an expression of "desirability" in strong 
terms, But it falls shc..·t of creating any kind of substantive right in favour 
of the complainant by reason of which the respondent may be debarred 
F from placing his version in defence in any circumstances whatsoever. It 
is for th.e forum or the commission to consider all facts and circumstances 
along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as 
a guideline, and then to exercise its.discretion a·s best it may serve·the ends 
of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping 
G in mind principles of naturat'justice as well. The form may refuse to extend 
time beyond 15 days, in view of Section 13 (2 )(a) of the Act but exceeding 
the period of 15 days of extension, would not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.