Haryana

StateCommission

A/246/2019

SUNITA GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

24 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.           246 of 2019

Date of Institution:       08.03.2019

Date of Decision:         24.07.2019

 

 

Sunita Goyal w/o Shri Dhanvir Goyal, resident of House No.965, Sector 7C, Faridabad.

 

…….Appellant-Decree Holder

 

Versus

 

 

1.      M/s BPTP Limited, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, through its MD/Director/Chairman/Manager etc.

 

2.      M/s Business Park Maintenance Services (P) Ltd., Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, through its MD/Director/Chairman/Manager etc.

 

 

 

3.      M/s BPTP Limited, Site Office, Sector 85, Faridabad through its MD/Director/Chairman/Manager etc.

          Service be effected through respondent No.1.

 

…..Respondents-Judgment Debtors

 

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

Present:     None for the appellant.

                   Shri Himanshu Monga, counsel for the respondents.

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

Received by post.

2.      The decree holder, namely, Sunita Goyal has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, whereby execution petition filed by her, stood dismissed in default.

3.      From a perusal of the impugned order, it is made out that the execution was called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of the decree holder. At about 3:40 P.M., when it was felt that no more wait was justified, the execution petition was dismissed in default.

4.      According to the appellant, her counsel could not put in appearance before the learned Executing Court on 22.01.2019 as he had wrongly noted the date as 23.01.2019 instead of 22.01.2019. In support of her stand, she has placed on record photocopy of the diary maintained by her counsel, wherein the case of the appellant is not entered on the page meant for 22.01.2019 for noting the dates. However, necessary mention has been made against the page meant for 23.01.2019.

5.      Learned counsel for the respondents states that the decree holder as well as her counsel were very well aware of the fact that the execution petition stood adjourned to 22.01.2019 and as such no fault could be found in the impugned order dismissing the execution petition in default.

6.      Having heard learned counsel for the respondents and on going through the impugned order as well as various documents which are on the file including two relevant pages of the diary kept by the counsel for the decree holder, we find that sufficient cause has been shown as to why the decree holder or her counsel could not put in appearance before the Executing Court on 22.01.2019. As such, a case is made out for setting aside the impugned order dismissing the execution petition in default.

7.      Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the learned District Forum while dismissing the execution petition in default is set aside and the execution petition is restored at its original number. The learned District Forum shall proceed with the execution in accordance with law.

8.      The parties shall put in appearance before the Executing Court on 29.08.2019. Necessary information in this regard be sent to the decree holder as she has not put in appearance and has filed the appeal by post.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondents states that he shall inform his clients about putting in appearance before the learned Executing Court on 29.08.2019.

10.    Copy of the order be sent to the learned District Forum.           

 

                                                         

Announced 24.07.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.