Haryana

StateCommission

RP/82/2015

Raja Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kapil Properties - Opp.Party(s)

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   82 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       21.09.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         12.10.2015

  

 

Raja Ram son of Shri Raj Singh, r/o House No.115, Village Khirjki, Near Malvia Nagar, New Delhi-17.

Petitioner-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Kapil Properties, Village Atmadpur, Faridabad, through Proprietor Shri Subhash.

2.      Mr. Subhash son of Sh. Jagmal r/o House No.660, Tuglakabad, New Delhi.

3.      Surender Kumar son of Shri Sohan Lal, r/o House No.663, /22, Tuglakabad, New Delhi.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present :    None for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          The instant revision petition has been received by post and filed by Raja Ram-complainant (petitioner) against the order dated July 16^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum), Faridabad.  For ready reference, order is reproduced as under:-

          “JD Surender and Subhash have been produced in pursuance of warrants of arrest.  JD Surender and Subhash have made a statement that they will make the compliance with the order dated 21.03.2014 within 45 days and they have further requested that they be released on bail.

“Keeping in view of the statement made by the JDs, they are admitted to bail till 16.09.2015 on furnishing the personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each.  Now, to come up on 31.08.2015 for compliance.

2.      The grievance of the complainant was that District Forum has no jurisdiction to admit the Judgment Debtors on personal bond in the execution proceedings.

3.      Under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, notice was issued to the JDs, they appeared and admitted to bail by the District Forum.  In view of this, there is no illegality or irregularity discernible in the order passed by the District Forum.  Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.     

 

October 12th, 2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

U.K