12.....08.12.2021....
Today is fixed for passing necessary order in connection with MA No.13/2021 filed by the petitioner / complainant and MA No.14/2021 filed by the petitioners / OP Nos. 1 & 3. Both M. As are taken up together for disposal.
The gist of the MA No. 13/2021 is as follows :-
That he complainant filed the case against the O.Ps / petitioners and the O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 filed written version on 03.02.2021 annexing a cancellation of Sale Agreement dated 07.12.2019. That the alleged deed of cancellation of sale against bear forged signatures and the signatures of the petitioner / complainant in the money receipts are also not genuine. That the complainant put his signatures in the original written complaint and the sale agreement dated 17.08.2018 which are quite different from the signatures of the deed of cancellation of sale agreement. The petitioner / complainant has filed the M.A. praying for sending the signatures of the complainant / petitioner appear in the sale agreement and the alleged cancellation of sale agreement for comparison by hand writing expert.
The O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 filed written objection against the MA stating that the petition is not maintainable and the deed of cancellation of sale agreement as well as money receipts are genuine and it will be apparent from the bank statement of the complainant that he took back money through cheque and cash on several occasions from the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 as the complainant gave loan to the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 and O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 repaid the loan amount in time.
The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner / complainant submits that the O.Ps. entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant on 17.08.2021 on receipt of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty Lakh) as it appears from the Memo of consideration in the agreement for sale. It is urged that the allegation regarding cancellation of agreement for sale by the complainant is false and the so called signatures of the complainant in the alleged cancellation of sale agreement dated 07.12.2019 and the so-called money transaction and money receipts are not genuine. She argues that the appointment of hand writing expert is necessary for
proper adjudication of the disputes to ascertain as to whether the so called signatures of the complainant in the alleged cancellation of agreement for sale and money receipts are false or not.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 submits that the complainant executed the cancellation of agreement for sale and received an amount of Rs.17,70,000/- (Rupees seventeen Lakh and seventy Thousand) in cash as it appears from the Memo of Consideration annexed in the cancellation of agreement of sale dated 07.12.2019. It is urged that the complainant files the case on false allegations.
The gist of the MA No.14/2021 is as follows :-
The O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 has asserted that the present case has been filed on 28.08.2020 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act. 1986 but the C.P. Act, 1986 has been replaced on 20.07.2020 by the C.P. Act, 2019. It is asserted that the present case is not maintainable as the C.P. Act, 1919 was not in existence on 28.08.2020.
The complainant / O.P. filed written objection stating that the complaint case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer in terms of the C.P. Act.
We have gone through both the MAs, Written Objections, Written complaint, written versions and other materials on record. It is the allegation of the complainant that he entered into an agreement with the O.Ps. for purchase of a flat. On 17.08.2018 on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty Lakh) and the complainant was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount at the time of registration of the Deed of Conveyance but the O.Ps. did not execute the Deed of Conveyance, resulting filing of the complaint case.
The O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 filed W/V with a story that the complainant has already cancelled the agreement for sale on 07.12.2019 and took a sum of Rs Rs.17,70,000/- (Rupees seventeen Lakh and seventy Thousand). The O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 have alleged that the complainant received the amount of Rs.17,70,000/- in cash and cheque on different dates from 20.08.2018 to 01.06.2019 as it appears from the Memo of Consideration of the cancellation of agreement for sale dated 07.12.2019. The O.Ps. also filed photocopies of vouchers to establish the payment to the complainant which also bear the alleged signatures of the complainant. The complainant has asserted that the alleged signatures in the so-called cancellation agreement for sale and other money receipts are not signatures of the complainant for which he prayed for sending the said cancellation agreement for sale and other money receipts to the hand writing expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the complainant in the agreement for sale dated 17.08.2018 for ascertaining the truth as to genuineness
of the alleged signatures of the complainant in the cancellation deed of agreement for sale and other vouchers produced by the O.P. Nos. 1 & 3.
On a careful consideration, we find that the present complaint gives rise to some complicated and complex facts as well as law for determination for which oral as well as documentary evidence is necessary. There are allegations of fraud and forgery. In this respect upon relying on a decision passed in Prodeep Bleaching Works Pvt. Ltd Versus Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (1991) II C.P.J. 437, we hold that the points involved in this case cannot be determined without taking oral & elaborate documentary evidence including expert opinion which will take much time and all questions involved in this case are not within the scope of the C.P. Act, 2019.The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier reported in (1996) 2 CPJ 25 (SC) that in an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to original civil court established under the CPC or appropriate State law to have the claims decided between the parties.
In our considered opinion, this case involves complicated points of facts and laws and it cannot be decided within the stipulated period prescribed by law. .Moreover, all points involved in this case are not within the ambit of the C.P. Act, 1919.
Hence, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the matters in question, with a liberty given to either of the parties to pursue their remedy by way of Civil Suit, if so advised.
The M.A. 13/2021 and 14/2021 are s thus disposed of.
In view of the above order, the complaint case be disposed of.
Parties are at liberty to pursue this remedy by way of Civil Suit, if so advised.
