Haryana

StateCommission

RP/41/2017

RAGHU HYUNDAI ROAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANISH SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

RAMENDER CHAUHAN

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.41 of  2017

Date of the Institution: 12.04.2017

Date of Decision: 30.01.2019

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana, through its Estate Officer, Sonepat.

2.      The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Petitioners

Versus

 

1. Mohinder Saini, Advocate, s/o Sh. Sh.Deep Chand,
2. Suman Lata w/o Sh. Mohinder Saini, Advocate, both  R/o H.No.108, Badepur, Sonepat at present R/o 1879, Sector-12, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sikander Bakshi proxy counsel for Mr.Rajesh Kaul,  Advocate for the petitioners.

                    Mr.Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat in Execution application No.147 of 2016 vide which the respondent-JD is directed to issue no due certificate to the complainants-DH.

 

2.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh. Sikander Bakshi proxy counsel for Mr. Rajesh Kaul,  the learned counsel for the revisionists as well as Sh.Bhupender Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents.  With their kind assistance the entire record of the District Forum as well as the revision petition has also been properly perused and examined.

3.                As per the contention raised on behalf of the revisionists as well as respondents, it is true that complaint was filed before the  learned District Forum, Sonepat against the present revisionists, which was allowed.   The matter was adjudicated, even before this Commission where the appeal was dismissed as has been redundant.  The revisionist has also approached the Hon’ble National Commission, but of no consequence.  In between the parties, whatever the orders were passed by the learned District Forum have  also been complied with and in this regard, statements has also been suffered.  Once, the order has been complied with in latter and spirit to the satisfaction of the complainants. There is no eventuality to file  a fresh execution application raising  a further demand, it is not covered under the original order passed by the learned District Forum.  Hence, impugned order dated 15.11.2016 is set aside and Revision Petition is allowed.

 

January 30th, 2019

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.