Haryana

Bhiwani

EA/37/2019

UMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Execution Application No. EA/37/2019
( Date of Filing : 28 May 2019 )
In
292/2006
 
1. UMA
D/o Ramphal vpo Bardu Jogi
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DHBVNL
M.D Hissar
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Vijay Singh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Saroj bala Bohra MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Harisha Mehta MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Aug 2022
Final Order / Judgement

EA 37/19 Uma Vs. DHBVNL

Present:        Sh. Sanjeev Brar, Adv. for DH.

                     Mrs. Reena Sharma, Adv. for JDs.

                    

                     Reply to the objection petition not filed by the counsel for DH. The counsel for DH has stated that the decree holder had already submitted the documents as required in compliance of the order dated 4.3.2010 and in support of his submission, he has placed on record copy of notice dated 25.11.2022 issued to the JDs wherein it is mentioned in para No. 1 of the notice that the application of the DH/complainant was still pending before the JD No. 2 which has not been decided till date of sending the aforesaid notice and prayed to dispose off the said application at the earliest.

                     Notice does not disclose at all that in compliance of the order dated 4.3.2010, the DH has submitted any required documents with the respondent/JDs. On inquiry, the DH has also failed to submit any other documents which prima facie would show that he had ever complied the order dated 4.3.2010.

                     As per the order dated 4.3.2010, the complaint No. 290/2006 was disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the required documents with the respondents within 15 days from today i.e. 4.3.2010, if any and the respondents were directed to settle the claim of complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of documents. At that time also, the submission of the respondents was that the case of complainant is pre-mature as the complainant did not submit the required documents with them. More than 12 years have expired from the date of passing of the impugned order but till date, the complainant has not complied the same. So in these circumstances, there no purpose would be served by getting the execution petition pending for the said purpose. Therefore, we are of this opinion that the complainant/DH himself did not comply with the order dated 4.3.2010 and as no order was passed for which the compliance of order was required to be made by the JDs. Hence, the same stands dismissed.                   

                      Papers be consigned to the record-room. 

 

                                                                                            President

        Member             Member                       DCDRC, Bhiwani.

                                                                                            30.8.2022

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Vijay Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Saroj bala Bohra]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Harisha Mehta]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.