KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 86/2023

ORDER DATED: 23.11.2023

(Against the Order in I.As. 546, 547 & 548/23 in C.C. 298/2019 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Rasheedmon P.A., S/o Abdul Khader, Director of Alif Builders, Poolakkal House, Pathirippala Post, Palakkad-678 302.

             (By Adv. T.N. Sabeesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Dr. Lesly George, The Rang, Thottathukalam, Walara, Nattukal Post, Nalleppulli, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad-678 554.

2. Lijoy Joy, W/o Dr. Lesly George, The Rang, Thottathukalam, Walara, Nattukal Post, Nalleppulli, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad-678 554.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The opposite party in C.C. No. 298/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) is in revision before us challenging three orders passed by the District Commission on 09.10.2023 in I.A. Nos. 546/2023, 547/2023 and 548/2023.  As per the orders under revision, all the I.As have been dismissed. 

2.  According to the revision petitioner, he had filed the petitions seeking production of certain additional documents from the Nallepally Gramapanchayat and for production of some other documents found necessary to be produced subsequent to his cross examination. 

3.  The District Commission has noticed in its order that the applications were filed at the fag end of the evidence session after the cross examination of the petitioner was also completed.  Therefore, the District Commission examined the pleadings of the parties in the case to find out whether the production or non-production of the said documents would affect the interests of the parties.  It has been found that, what was the issue in the complaint was only whether the damage to a building alleged by the complainant was caused due to poor workmanship or low quality of the raw materials.  In view of the above, it has been found that production of the documents sought for by the revision petitioner were not relevant to the facts of the case.  It has also been found that the attempt was to bring in issues that were the subject matter of a civil suit pending between the parties before the Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad. In the above view of the matter, the petitions filed have been dismissed vide three separate orders. 

4.  We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner.  We have also carefully perused the records produced before us.  We notice that the complaint is of the year 2019 and that, recording of evidence in the case is almost complete.  The documents sought to be produced are not in any way germane to the issues that are pending consideration in the said case.  It is for the said reason that the petitions have been dismissed.  We do not find any error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the District Commission.  It is for the revision petitioner to co-operate with the District Commission and to ensure that the case is finally disposed of at the earliest.  If the decision in the case is against the revision petitioner, he shall be at liberty to challenge the orders in these Interlocutory Applications also in the appeal that he may choose to prefer against the said final order. 

For the above reason, this revision petition is dismissed.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                  AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                             RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb