By these two Appeals, a Real Estate Developer, namely, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., and its functionaries, call in question the correctness and legality of two orders, both dated 14.06.2017, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Execution Applications No. 28/2016 and 14/2016.  By the said orders, while taking cognizance of the applications filed by the Complainants/Decree Holders under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read with Section 190(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the State Commission has directed the Judgment Debtors to appear in person before it for framing the charges, in case its common substantive order dated 25.02.2015, as modified by this Commission in First Appeal No. 241 of 2015 (Nalin Bhargava & Anr. V. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.), was not complied with.  

During the course of hearing of these Appeals, the Appellants were directed to furnish certain information, particularly with regard to the Completion Certificate, stated to have been received by them sometime in the year 2015.  It was also brought to our notice that certain orders relating to deficiencies in the common facilities in the subject project have been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants has placed before us another order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7596 of 2016 (Nalin Bhargava & Anr. V. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.), whereby directions relating to the inspection of the premises, subject matter of the present Appeals as well, have been issued to the Court Commissioner, appointed by the Supreme Court.

Further, although the stand of the Appellants is that the possession of the subject flats has already been delivered to the Complainants/Decree Holders, but, according to the Decree Holders, the possession of the said flats was only symbolic for a limited purpose for fit-outs and, therefore, because of the incomplete work, they were unable to occupy the flats.       

In our view, apart from the fact that any observation on the afore-noted rival stands at this stage, when the State Commission is yet to pass final orders in the Execution Applications, would cause prejudice to the parties, upon appearance before the State Commission in the Execution Applications, they would be free to make all such submissions in those proceedings.     

          In view of the above, we decline to entertain the present Appeals at this pre-mature stage, albeit with the clarification that it will be open to both the parties to place before the State Commission their respective stands, including the question of issue of the Completion Certificate, in the Execution proceedings.

          The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Dasti.