DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 213/2021
P R E S E N T :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
Order No.18
Dated.10.01.2024
Today is fixed for fresh hearing in respect of hand writing expert. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 2 is present.
Petition dated 24/01/2023 filed by O.P No. 2 is taken up for hearing. Petition is registered as M.A. case no. 19/2024. Heard both sides. Perused the petition dated 24/01/2023 filed by O.P No. 2. Perused the W/O filed by the Complainant.
O.P No. 2 stated in para no. 2 of the petition dated 24/01/2023 that he had never signed in any agreement for sale or other relevant documents. Hence, appointment of hand writing expert is highly essential.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 2 produced one document wherein it has mentioned that Trade License given to Amar Sarkar and Sourav Sahu has cancelled on 03/03/2020.
On perusal of W/V of O.P No. 2 we find that he stated in para no. 15:-
“The answering opposite party No. 2 states that the petitioner was a former acquaintance of the opposite party no:3 as because one of the uncle of the opposite party no:3 was and still is the driver of his car at the petitioner’s house and as such, there is a cordial relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 and the opposite party no. 3 introduced the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 and after being satisfied of the on-going construction work of said M/S SAI DEVELOPER CO., the petitioner made an agreement for sale with the opposite party no.:2 and 3 on 06.04.2016 for purchasing 2(two) residential flats and (3)Three garages of said Multi-storied building at a total consideration price of rupees 39,06,600/- only and on or before the day of signing the agreement for sale dated 06.04.2016, the petitioner gives 5,00,000/- only as an advance money to the opposite party no:2 and 3 with a condition that the balance amount will be paid within 24 months from the date of this agreement for sale or at the time of taking possession of the flats at the time of registration whichever is earlier and after realizing the said sum of rupees 5,00,000/- from the petitioner by both the opposite party no:2 and 3, they as a working partners rather as a representative of said M/S. SAI DEVELOPER CO. issued a money receipt at a sum of rupees 5,00,000/- only and the same was hand over to the petitioner after putting their (both the working partners of said M/S. SAI DEVELOPER CO.) signature on the said money receipt.”
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cited a decision reported in 2018 (2) ICC 872 (Karnataka) (Annapurna and Ors. Vs. Himalatha and Ors.). We find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that when the Trial Court has recorded a specific finding while rejecting the application filed under order 26 rule 10 (a) of the C.P.C that evidence available on record suffice to decide the controversy between the parties and admittedly when the matter was posted for argument the application came to be filed by the plaintiff under order 26 rule 10 (a) of the C.P.C which rightly came to be rejected by the Trial Court.
Accordingly we find that O.P No. 2 admitted in his W/V that he executed the aforesaid agreement for sale. So his contention in the petition dated 24/01/2023 that ‘he had never signed in any agreement for sale and / or other relevant documents’ is not acceptable in the eye of law.
As the O.P No. 2 admitted the agreement for sale so question of verification of the said document by hand writing expert does not arise.
In view of aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that the aforesaid petition filed by O.P No. 2 is devoid of merits and same is rejected.
M.A. case No. 19/2024 is thus disposed of.
To 21/05/2024 for filing evidence by O.P No. 2.
Member President
