Order No.07                                      Date-02.05.2022

            Nither the complainant nor his Advocate is present.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP-6 is present.

            Today is fixed for hearing Miscellaneous Application being No.  139/2022 filed by the OP-6. Despite serice of impugned application to the Ld. Advocate for the complainant,  he did not file any WO against such application. There is also no prayer on the part of the complainant for extension of time to file WO  and/or adjournment of hearing. Thus, the Miscellanous Application dated 21.03.2022 filed  by the OP-6 is taken up for ex parte hearing.

            By filing the impugned application, the Ld. Advocate for the OP-6 submits that pendency of Title Suit being No.  891/2021 in the court of Ld. 7^th Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Alipore over the self same land over which the alleged and purported complaint has been filed. He further submits that the instant complaint case is required to be stayed still the disposal of the said Title Suit No.  891/2021. In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the OP-6 filed a bunch of documents including  phtoocopy of plaint in conneciton with TS No. 891/2021 pending before the Ld. 7^th Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Alipore.

            We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the OP-6. Perused the impugned application coupled with copy of plaint being TS No. 891/2021.  A careful comparision of averments made in the Civil Suit with avermetns lead in the instant complaint case leave no doubt that the grievances made by Sri Goutam Sarkar (OP-5 of the instant complaint case) as well as in the complaint petition are almost identical. In a case (Novous Abasan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dakishneswar Saptarshi Welfare Society) passed in RP No. 2858/2014. The Hon’ble NCDRC has been observed that “If, the Civil Suit as well as the complaint filed before the State Commision are allowed to proceed simulatenously, there is a likelyhood of conflicting findings of facts being rendered by the aforesaid two Forums, therefore, it would be necessary in order to avoid conflicting finding of facts being rendered by two Fourms that either the Civil Suit or the complaint filed before the SCDRC is stayed. Considering that the findings of the Civil Court renderd in the Civil Suit between the parties would be binding on the SCDRC, we are of the view that the complaint pending before SCDRC should remain stayed, during the pendency of Civil Suit, which the complainants society has filed before the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) at Barasat District, 24 Pgs North, WB”.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the OP-6 coupled with the documents referred by him including the above cited decision, we are inclined to allow the Miscellaous Application and the instant proceedings before this Commision shall remain stayed during pendnecy of the Title Suit being No. 891/2021 before the Ld. 7^th Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Alipore. It shall be open to this Commission to proceed with the instant complaint case after the Civil Court renders its final decision in the Civil Suit.

            Thus, MA being No.  139/2022 is disposed of.

            On scutiny of the record, it appears to us that an ad interim order of injunctin was passed on 07.02.2022 restraining the OPs 1 to 6 from tranferring and or creating any incumbrances of the subject flat fully mentioned in the schedule of the Consumer Complaint till  08.03.2022 and time to time such order was extended. There is also no prayer on the part of the complainant for  extension of ad interim  order of  injunction. Therefore, we are not Suo-Moto extend the order of ad inerim injunction dated 07.02.2022 for anymore.

Thus, MA being No. 10/2022 is disposed of.

Stay of the case be noted in the filing register.