Court No. 6 (265719) 04.08.2026 (AD 45) (S. Banerjee) CO 848 of 2026 Pijush Saha Vs. Subrata Roy & Ors. Ms. Maheswari Sharma Mr. Mainak Bhunia …for the petitioner Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Mr. Debraj Dutta Ms. Nivedita Mullick …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the opposite-parties in a Consumer Complaint Case No. SC/19/CC/13 of 2020 challenging the order dated February 5, 2026 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. By the order impugned, the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order dated June 17, 2025 stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was supposed to file the reply to the questionnaire on June 17, 2025. For some unavoidable reason the same could not be filed on that date. However, the State Commission closed the opportunity to file reply. Petitioner thereafter took out an application praying for recalling of the order dated June 17, 2025 to permit the petitioner to file 2 the reply to the questionnaire. Such prayer was rejected by the impugned order. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the litigant should not be made to suffer for the latches, if any, on the part of the learned advocate. Heard Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate on such submission. On a query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the reply to the questionnaire was made ready and the same has been annexed to this civil revision application. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file the reply to the questionnaire. If on the next date fixed before the State Commission, petitioner files the reply to the questionnaire, the same shall be accepted subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 3,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite-party within two weeks from date and the State Commission shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law. If the cost is not paid within the time limit as mentioned hereinbefore, this order shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and the civil revision application shall be deemed to 3 have been dismissed without any further reference to this Court. The order impugned is set aside for the reasons as mentioned hereinbefore. Accordingly, this civil revision application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)