Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President
Heard Mr.Nilesh Parte-Advocate for the revision petitioner. This revision petition is directed as against the order passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum on delay condonation application filed in consumer complaint no.168/2011. The order is dated 16/12/2011. By this order the delay in filing the complaint has been condoned by the District Forum. The complainant is a flat purchaser and has entered into an agreement with Mr.Prakash Raghunath Naik-partner of M/s.Shri Ganesh Krupa Construction Co. It appears, with the said partnership firm opponent no.6 society had also an agreement but, however, the said partnership firm has left the project and, thereafter, opponent no.1 another partnership firm has entered into an agreement with opponent no.6. What is important to be noted and submitted across the bar that the name of opponent no.1 is the same as that of the earlier partnership firm viz.M/s.Shri Ganesh Krupa Construction Co. When we asked the Ld.counsel whether opponent no.1 is a registered partnership firm or not, he submitted that it is an unregistered partnership firm. No doubt in view of provisions of sub-section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unregistered partnership can approach to the Consumer Fora as opponent but similarity in the names reflects upon the business of the parties. We need not enter into all these things at this stage but we have noted that complainant has filed complaint for getting removed certain deficiencies. He desires to obtain possession of the flat in question and also conveyance in respect of said property. Admittedly, scheme is covered under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). Relief of possession is a continuous cause of action and, therefore, time will not start unless and until possession is delivered. However, complainant has submitted delay condonation application along with the complaint. It was contested on merit and, thereafter, District Forum observed that it is a case of continuous cause of action and condoned the delay. What we find reason given by the District Forum is proper and requires no interference at the hands of State Commission. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case and since the relief of possession is claimed, delay condonation application was not necessary but may be that under misconception and by way of abundant precaution it was filed and delay stood condoned. We do not find any substance in the revision petition. Such revision petitions are only to protract the complaint and harass the consumer. Therefore, we refrain ourselves to entertain the revision petition and reject the same in limine subject to payment of costs of `1000/- to be deposited in Legal Aid Fund of this Commission within 15 days from today. If the said amount is not deposited within 15 days from today, Registrar (Legal) of this Commission shall issue recovery certificate under section 25(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the Collector for recovery of the said amount.
ORDER
Revision petition is rejected in limine subject to payment of costs of `1000/- to be deposited in Legal Aid Fund of this Commission within 15 days from today. If the said amount is not deposited within 15 days from today, Registrar (Legal) of this Commission shall issue recovery certificate under section 25(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the Collector for recovery of the said amount.
Pronounced on 18th October, 2012.
