Heard the parties.

2.         On 5.05.2014 the following order was passed:

“Mr. S. Gautam submitted that the only grievance of the complainant is that he has not been provided with the map/plan of the internal water pipeline and electrical line, by the O.P. so that he get the seepage repaired.

This grievance appears to be quite reasonable and genuine.

Mr. Deepak Banerjee counsel for the O.P. submitted that the O.P. will be asked to supply the same to Mr.  Gautam within a week.  Put up on 12.05.2015.”

3.          On 12.05.2014, Mr. Deepak Banerjee provided map/plan of the internal       water pipeline and electrical pipe line to Mr. Gautam.

4.     Thereafter though Mr. Banerjee appeared for O.P. on 26.05.2014,           27.06.2014 and 22.09.2014, but nobody appeared on behalf of the Complainant.

5.          On 2.02.2015 the following order was passed:

“Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted that the plans furnishes by the other parties are incomplete.

Mr. Banerjee submitted that such objection is being raised after about one year of furnishing of the plans.  He further submitted that the O.P. is ready to rectify the defects if any without any cost.

As prayed on behalf of the Complainant, two weeks time is allowed to file objection to the plans, if any and to take instruction on the said submission of Mr. Banerjee.  Put up on 2.03.2015.”

6.          From the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the Complainant, it appears that the Complainant is still asking for the lay out plan/ map of the internal water pipe line.

7.          Mr. Banerjee referring to the reply, submitted that the O.Ps.  furnished the map/plan prepared by the architect showing different points but the lay out of the pipe line can be traced from  point to point.  Therefore, he submitted that O.Ps. have complied the orders passed by this Commission. He further pointed out that the possession of Flat in question was taken in the year 2009.

8.          On this, Mr. Gurav Avishek submitted that the O.Ps. had made certain changes in the plan of the architect and such change are not known to the Complainant.

9.           In reply, Mr. Banerjee submitted such changes were done at the request of the Complainant and therefore he fully knows about the same.

10.          It appears that the grievances of the complainant has been substantially redressed and no useful purpose will be served by keeping this complainant petition pending.

                      Accordingly, it is disposed of with the said observations.

  Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.