HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the complainants for appointment of a qualified and empanelled civil engineer or architect to visit the locale and to ascertain the complainants’ car parking space in respect of the agreement for sale dated 31/12/2018 and Deed of Conveyance dated 04/10/2021 whether any shortfall of total area of the car parking space in question then the area is mentioned in the agreement for sale dated 31/12/2018 and deed of conveyance dated 04/10/2021 and as per the sanctioned building plan No. 2016100150 dated 15/12/2016. The complainants’ car parking space would be constructed by the developer.
- The facts to be taken notice for the disposal of the present I.A. Application are that the complainants had instituted a complaint case against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) An order directing the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to hand over actual shortfall 28 square feet area of thecar parking space in terms of Agreement for Sale and Deed of Conveyance to the complainants in respect of the said car parking space.
ii) An order directing the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to give free access to the complainants for their said car parking space regarding park and / or move their vehicle smoothly.
iii) An order directing the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the complainants a reasonable compensation for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) for inconveniences, mental agony and physical harassments caused to the complainants by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.
iv) An order directing the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the complainants a reasonable compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) for unfair trade practice caused to the complainants for delivery of an unauthorized car parking space to the complainants by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.
v) Cost of Rs.5,00,000/- for litigation.
vi) Any other relief / reliefs to which the complainants are entitled to law and in equity.”
- The opposite parties entered appearance in this case and contesting the case by filing written version.
- I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the record of the case including the present application and its written objection. On due consideration of the submissions made by the parties and after careful perusal of the record I find that the application for appointment of a civil engineer or architect has been filed after filing of the written versions by the opposite parties and the case is at the stage of final evidence by the opposite parties. From the application of the complainants and its written objection it appears to me that in fact the complainants want to collect evidence through the agency of the commissioner which is not permissible in law. The facts, which they want to prove by appointing a civil engineer or architect can be proved otherwise also. That being the position, the complainants herein can file evidence by way of affidavit which shall be considered by this Commission in accordance with law.
- Under these facts and circumstances I conclude that the application filed by the complainants is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected.
- In the result, the application for appointment of a civil engineer or architect to visit the locale filed by the complainants is rejected with no order as to costs.
- The application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
- To 30/04/2025 for filing further evidence on affidavit by the complainants, if any.
