Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/245/2021

Shamsher Singh Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lotous vardman - Opp.Party(s)

Blinder Pal Saini

13 Sep 2021

ORDER

Shamsher Singh Malik Vs. Lotus Vardhman Developers etc.

Present: Sh.Blinder Pal Saini Advocate for the complainant.

ORDER:

                Heard on the  maintainability of the present complaint.

2.             In  brief the complainant  applied for a plot in Lotus Vardhman City at Kurukshetra  on 25.1.2007  through OP No.4 and plot of the size of 350 sq.yards  and paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the Ops  on  15.2.2007. The Ops had promised to start the development work within one month failing which to pay the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount.  The OP No.1 to 3 failed to develop the site, rather sent the letter dated 24.09.2007 demanding Rs.1,13,750/- extra which has been deposited through cheque by the complainant on 13.10.2007. The Ops sent letter dated 15.12.2007  informing about the allotment of plot No.C.037 of 400 sq. yards whereas the complainant had applied for the plot of the size of 350 sq. yards. The OP no.1 to 3 again sent letter informing the complainant that plot No.A-192 has been allotted instead of plot No.C037. The complainant has thus demanded refund of  amount of  Rs.4,63,750/- deposited by him with the Ops   alongwith interest from the Ops.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as per order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the court of Learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, the complainant has been granted permission to file a case before the Consumer Forum, therefore, the present complaint before this Commission is well maintainable. He has relied upon the authority  Veer Bhan and another Vs.Madan Gopal (P & H) Law Doc Id # 50686 and Jagpal Singh Vs. Rajinder Singh (P & H): Law Finder Doc Id # 1615192.

4.             A perusal of the file shows that  the complainant had earlier filed a civil suit before the Civil Courts at Kurukshetra and said civil  suit filed by the complainant was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2016. Then the complainant filed appeal against the judgment  dated 28.3.2017 which has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.7.2017. A perusal of the order dated 22.07.2021 shows that the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide its order dated 22.07.2021 has not granted permission to file a fresh case before this Commission and has only stated that in view of the statement made by the complainant, the present is dismissed as withdrawn. The authorities cited on behalf of the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

                  The matter into controversy between the parties to this complaint stands already decided by the civil court, therefore, principle of resjudicata applies in this case, which is reproduced as under:

  5.          According to the dictionary meaning, 'Res Judicata' means a case or suit involving a particular issue between two or more parties already decided by a court. .

               The principle of res judicata seeks to promote the fair administration of justice and honesty and to prevent the law from abuse. The principle of res judicata applies when a litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same matter, after having received a judgment in a previous case involving the same parties.

6.                     As the matter into controversy has already been decided by the Learned Civil Court, therefore, the principle of res judicata applies in this case and as such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated 13.09.2021.                                                                                       President.

 

                                               Member