Haryana

StateCommission

CC/134/2015

SAROJ SINGLA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.SHARMA

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No:134 of 2015

      Date of Institution :          06.08.2015

                                                     Date of Decision :           27.11.2015

 

 

1.     Smt. Saroj Singla, aged about 60 years w/o Sh. Charan Dass Singla, Resident of House No.357, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

2.     Shri Charan Dass Singla, aged about 63 years s/o late Shri Ami Chand, Resident of House No.357, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana.  

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, HUDA Office Complex, Plot No.C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.      Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Panchkula, HUDA Office Complex, Plot No.C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                   

Present:               Shri N.P. Sharma, Advocate for complainants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

Saroj Singla and her husband Charan Dass Singla-Complainants, filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission on August 6^th, 2015 and the same was fixed for August 20^th, 2015 for motion hearing.

2.     On August 20^th, 2015, the case was put up before Additional Bench of this Commission consisting of Shri R.K. Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member and Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. On that day of the first hearing Shri N.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainants made statement seeking permission to withdraw the complaint, which reads as under:-

“I do not want to pursue this complaint at this stage due to technical defect and I may be permitted to withdraw the same with permission to file afresh complaint on the same cause of action.”

3.      In view of the above statement, Shri R.K. Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member, passed the following order:-

“In view of the statement of counsel for the complainants, complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. He may file fresh complaint on the same cause of action, if law permits and this order will not create any right. This order will not extend period of limitation to file fresh complaint.”

4.      Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, did not agree with the above order and passed dissenting order, the operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

“….The counsel has not requested for extension period of limitation to file fresh complaint. In his statement he has simply withdrawn the complaint and permission for filing fresh complaint on the same cause of action. I pass my separate order as under:-

          In view of the statement of counsel for the complainants, complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action.”

5.      Once the litigant files an application or makes statement to withdraw the litigation with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, the court can either accept the prayer or reject the prayer. It cannot allow it partly by permitting to withdraw and refusing permission to file afresh on the same cause of action.

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha Vs. Sambhajirao & Anr. 2009 SC 806, observed as under:

“An application for withdrawal of suit was made, seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. The order passed by the court was that 'The application is, therefore, allowed while permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit'. It was held that this should be construed as an order also granting liberty, as prayed. The court cannot split the prayer made by the applicant."

7.      Though both learned Members have permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint, however, the difference of opinion was only with respect to permission to file fresh with same cause of action.

8.      In view of the factual and legal position enunciated above, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action, in agreement with order passed by Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan.   

 

 

Announced:                                                        (B.M. Bedi)

27.11.2015                                                                   Judicial Member

CL