NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/326/2013

MANISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

15 Jul 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2013

(Against the Order dated 21/02/2013 in Complaint No. 04/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka)

1. MANISH KUMAR S/O. SH. KEWAL KRISHAN, PERMANENT R/O. C-6/342, BADAN STREET, NEAR GOLE PARK, DHURI-148024 DISTT. SANGRUR PUNJAB	...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & anr. NO. 5, "VACHANI VISTA" 1ST & 2ND FLOOR, IV 'B' BLOCK, 100 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 2. MR. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, (CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR), # 380, ITTINA CENTRE, 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 3. MS. MONA ITTINA (DIRECTOR) ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 380, ITTINA CENTRE, 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 4. MR. VEERESH ITTINA (DIRECTOR) ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 380, ITTINA CENTRE, 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 5. MR. MANU ITTINA (DIRECTOR) ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 380, ITTINA CENTRE, 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 6. MRS. I. NAGALAMBIKE W/O. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, ITTINA HOUSE, KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELRAM POST, BANGALORE-560035 KARNATAKA 7. ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 8. MR. I. MAHABALESWARAPPA, (CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR), ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 9. MS. MONA ITTINA (DIRECTOR) ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 380, ITTINA CENTRE , 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 10. MR. VEERESH ITTINA (DIRECTOR) ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 380, ITTINA CENTRE , 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 11. MR. MANU ITTINA (DIRECTOR) ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., # 380, ITTINA CENTRE , 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA 12. MRS. I. NAGALAMBIKE W/O. I MAHABALESWARAPPA, ITTINA HOUSE, KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMELRAM POST, BANGALORE-560034 KARNATAKA	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant :

Mr. Manish Kumar, In Person

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 15 Jul 2013

ORDER

Appeal No.326 of 2013 has been filed against the order of the State Commission in Execution Petition No.4 of 2010. The impugned order passed on 21.02.2013 reads as follows:-    “Twice case called, none represent on behalf of DHr- Adv for J.Dr. is present. Though 05 months time has been granted to the D.Hr to produce the certified copy of sale deed but D.Hr has not produced- Hence, EP is dismissed for non-prosecution.”             A perusal of the record shows that the execution petition arose out of the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2007. In this Complaint filed by the present appellant /Shri Manish Kumar, the State Commission has noted that during the course of the proceedings appellant/Complainant expressed his no objection to re-convey the flat in favour of the OP/ M/s. Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. provided the OP refunds the amount of Rs.26,80,000/-. Counsel for the OP also agreed to refund the money provided to the Complainant execute the sale deed in favour of the OP. Therefore, the State Commission made the following order on 07.03.2008:-   “The Complainant is directed to execute the Sale Deed in respect of Flat bearing No.L-112 of Ittina Properties situated at Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, in favour of the OP, at the cost of the OP on receipt of Rs.26,80,000/- at the time of registration before the Sub Registrar.                       The Order shall be complied within 2 months from today.”             The case of the appellant is that in an earlier Execution Petition filed by him (EP No.40 of 2008) the State Commission had issued recovery certificate to the concerned Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue from the Judgment debtor and pay the same to the decree holder.             The matter in the present appeal arose from a subsequent Execution Petition filed by the appellant/Complainant. The memorandum of appeal against the impugned order states in para 2 (vii):-   “That on getting several opportunities, by 19.09.2011 the respondents paid Rs 26.8 lac to the petitioner and on 02.12.2011, the petitioner executed the Sale Deed in favour of the respondents.”              This was again confirmed in the present proceeding today by the appellant/ Complainant. In this background, we find no justification for the failure of the appellant/ Complainant to produce a certified copy of the sale deed despite five months’  time being  allowed  by the State Commission. We   do   not   accept   the   explanation   that   the   counsel   for   the appellant/Complainant had wrongly noted the date of hearing as 21.3.2013 as seen from the impugned order was taken up on 21.2.2013.             For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal No.326 of 2013 is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

......................

VINEETA RAI

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER