ORDER NO.  14.    Date-  22.03..2021.               

Today is fixed for passing order in respect of MA No. 682 of 2019 and 281 of 2020 filed by the OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Written Objection has also been filed by the complainant against the said MAs. Advocates of both sides have argued in their favour. Since the above mentioned MA Petitions are related to Consumer Complaint Case No.368 of 2019 both the MA Petitions are taken up together  for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

Now let us examine  the MA No 682 of 2019. The OPs vide their MA has raised the question that the Complaint Petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of non- joinder  of  parties as the Agreement for sale was executed in between the complainant being the purchaser and M/S Sampark Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. being  the Vendor whereas the complainant has filed the instant case against the Directors of the Company  instead of the Vendor Company .

We have also travelled over the objection filed by the complainant. The complainant  has mentioned in the W/O that the OP has never said that the Directors are not existing or retired or resigned and they have always communicated with the complainant in their individual capacity as per direction of the Company.

We  have  considered the submissions of both the parties. It is fact  that the Agreement was executed in between the Vendor Company and the complainant purchaser where the Directors have signed on behalf of the company and it is also fact that the Directors have not left the Company as yet. As such they are very much with the Company.  Mere technicality of  non making the Vendor Company as necessary party will not be ground of rejecting the case . Hence the MA Petition No. 682 of 2019 is disposed of.

Now let us consider the MA No. 281 of 2020.

As per submission of the OPs in the said  MA Petition,  the limitation period for filing the instant case expires on 31.12.2017 whereas the case has been filed on 05.09.2019 which is a delay of 613 days and on the ground of expiring the limitation period the case should be rejected.

Against the said submission they have cited the Case Law of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. V Board of Trustees of Port Mormugao(2005) 4 SCC 613 on the issue of Limitation wherein it is mentioned  that  the mandate of Section 3 of Limitation Act is that it is the duty of the Court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defense. If a suit is ex-facie barred by the Law of Limitation , a court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation.

Against the submission of the OPs the complainant vide his W/O stated that the OPs were in touch with the complainant and approached the complainant to withdraw the case in an unofficial meeting with the assurance of delivering the suit property to the complainant by September,2019 or after a few months. Hence the cause of action is continuing cause of action and does not not require any condonation of delay petition separately.

Considering the submission of both the parties and travelling over the documents submitted by them we understand that the Agreement for sale is for selling of a plot of land out of a big plot and there is no whisper of making any HOUSING CONSTRUCTION. As such as per Section 2(42) of the C.P.Act, 2019  the matter is not under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In view of the above the Court has no authority/jurisdiction to entertain the instant dispute. Hence the MA No 281 of 2020 stands dismissed.

In the result the Consumer  Complaint  fails. Hence the CC  being No.368/2019 is dismissed.