IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2784 of 2006 Bijendra Prasad Singh, son of Sri Surya Singh, resident of village Sundar Tola, P.O. Jitaura, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food and Supply , Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram through its Secretary 3. The Secretary, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. Dr. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, son of Shri Ramdhari Singh, resident of Mohalla Takia Bazar, P.O. Takia Bazar, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit and Raesh Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A. 3 -------------------------- 02/ 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rohtas in Execution Case No. 10 of 2005 as well as ex parte order dated 08.05.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 51 of 1999, by which the petitioner as well as another person was directed to pay Rs.59,490.00 to Dr. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (respondent no.4). 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without service of any notice to the petitioner although he was opposite party in the said case and the notice was published in a newspaper, which hardly as any circulation in the district of Bhojpur and hence it was contrary to the provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Against such orders under challenge in this writ 2 petition, an appeal is provided under the Statute before the State Commission and the factual aspects and the dispute with respect thereto involved in this writ petition can well be appreciated and considered by the appellate authority. 4. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the State Commission challenging the impugned orders. However, if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today along with an interlocutory application for condoning the delay as well as a copy of this order, the said appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)