Order no. 5             

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners is present.

The Misc. application is filed by the opposite parties/petitioners is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered.

Heard both sides.

The opposite parties/petitioners allege that the complaint application is barred by limitation as well as by law. Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners submits that the project was completed in the year 2015 and the opposite parties obtained completion certificate on 13.09.2017 from the authority. In spite of requests, the complainant has not responded for registration of the flat in question on payment of the dues amount. On the other hand the complainant has preferred to file the complaint case in order to delay the payment of rest dues amount with interest. The case is also barred under section 35(1)c of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to him as the case is not maintainable the same is liable to be rejected.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant raised strong objection against the prayer of the opposite parties/petitioners and submits that the complainant has filed the complaint case on the prayer of execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat, to handover the completion certificate and other relevant documents and inter alia on other reliefs.

Thereafter, notices were served upon the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered into appearance and filed written version. Thereafter, the complainant filed evidence on affidavit on 24.02.2022. The Commission had been pleased to fix 25.04.2022 for filing questionnaire by the opposite parties. But till date the opposite parties has not filed any questionnaire against the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand the opposite parties filed the instant Misc. Application on 25.04.2022 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.

The allegations raised by the opposite parties/petitioners in the Misc. Application are the subject matter of the complaint case which are required to be adjudicated on the touch stone of evidence of both the parties at the time of trial of the complaint case. Moreover, there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to deal with the question on maintainability of the case without taking evidence of the parties after admission hearing under section 36(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In our considered view, the opposite parties/petitioners have filed the instant Misc. Application adopting dilatory tactics in order to harass the complainant.

Therefore, the Misc. Application is liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the Misc. Application be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-.