NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4578/2012

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRATAP SINGH KHANGROT - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K.L. JANJANI & MR. PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH

04 Jul 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4578 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 14/09/2012 in Appeal No. 1090/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD
Through its Secretary. Head Office Jyoti Nagar, Janpath,Bhagwan Das Road,
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. PRATAP SINGH KHANGROT
S/o Mahendra Singh Khangrot, R/o B -56,Path No-7 Jamna Nagar,Sodala
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. K. L. Janjani, Advocate with
Mr. Ankit Gaur, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Nimit Mathur, Advocate

Dated : 04 Jul 2014
ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the parties present. 

2.      We have gone through the order passed by the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar, Chairman, Rajasthan State

-2-

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur.  As usual, the order is carbon copy of the orders already passed by the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar.  Again, this is not a speaking order.  It appears that the Bench had not applied its mind while disposing of this case. This is a cryptic order.  It appears that this Bench has prepared a model type of judgment, which is placed in each and every judgment.  The style of the judgment is the same.  Therefore, we think it proper that the case should be remanded back to the State Commission, which must be heard by a Bench, which is presided by another Judge.  This case is not to be decided by the Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar, Chairman.  The parties are directed to appear before the new Bench on 14.8.2014. The State Commission shall decide the matter expeditiously.

3.      The arguments for production of documents and filing of affidavit also heard.  It is transpired that the petitioner/opposite party could not produce the written version and its evidence and the right of filing the written version was forfeited.  The respondent/complainant was also directed to file some documents.  He has filed the same. 

-3-

Likewise, the petitioner/opposite party is also directed to place documents alongwith affidavit before the State Commission on 14.8.2014 for which no other date will be granted.  Costs of Rs.10,000/-  are imposed upon the petitioner/opposite party, which are to be paid to the complainant/respondent/Pratap Singh Khangrot through demand draft till the next date of listing otherwise the order passed by the State Commission shall prevail.  The State Commission will dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order on 14.8.2014 itself.    

          The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.