6... 12/12/2019..                                                                     

Ld. Lawyers of both sides are present. Today is fixed for hearing M.A. Case no. 37 of 2019 which has arisen out of a petition dated 30.09.2019 filed by O.P. no. 1 praying for dismissal of the case on the ground that it is not maintainable in law.

Written objection is filed against thereto by the complainant.

Heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers. Perused the petition and the written objection filed against thereto. Considered all these.

The complainant is seen to have purchased a shop room from O.P. nos. 1 and 2. The said shop room does not belong to O.P. nos. 1 and 2; it belongs to O.P. no. 3 i.e. the father of O.P. no. 1. On perusal of the sale agreement filed herein by the complainant, it is found that O.P. no. 3 was running a hardware shop in the subject shop room with proper license from the concerned municipality and that shop room has been sold to the complainant by O.P. no. 1 and 2 i.e. the son and daughter-in-law of O.P. no. 3. O.P. nos. 1 and 2 have also received Rs. 4,00,000/- in 2 phases from the complainant out of consideration price of Rs. 16,50,000/-. These facts establish that the transaction between the parties is nothing but a sale-simpliciter. There is no provision of providing any service to the complainant by the O.Ps., laid down in the sale agreement filed herein by the complainant. Rather, it is found on minute scrutiny of the complaint that an attempt is made on the part of the complainant to entertain the petition of complaint within the jurisdiction of this forum by having pleaded therein that O.P. nos. 1 and 2 are developers. No paper whatsoever has been filed by the complainant to prove that the said O.Ps. are developers. There is no whisper in any corner of the sale agreement that the O.Ps. agreed to sell the shop room to the complainant in their capacity of developers. Moreover O.P. nos. 1 and 2 have no legal right to sell to the complainant the subject shop room belonging to O.P. no. 3. The complainant is not a consumer within the definition of section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant case is not at all maintainable in law.

Hence,

                                                ORDERED

That the M.A. case being no. 37 of 2019 is allowed on contest. Consequently, the case stands dismissed as being not maintainable in law.