NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/641/2006

MALKHI RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM LAL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

02 Feb 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 641 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 19/12/2005 in Appeal No. 149/2005 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
1. MALKHI RAM ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RAM LAL ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER

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.

Learned counsels for parties were heard. Succinctly put, petitioner availed services of respondent counsel for filing civil suit and seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against one Bhuri Singh in the Court of Sub-Judge, Nurpur. Accordingly, an application under Order XXXIX, Rule ! & 2 of CPC was filed by respondent counsel for grant of interim injunction which was eventually passed by Court with issuance of show-cause to the defendant as to why the interim order was not made absolute. Since defendant did not respond to the order, a Local Commissioner came to be appointed, who found defendant constructing wall in violation of interim order passed by Court. The Court subsequent thereto, on submission of counsel for respondent, directed parties to maintain status quo in the matter and joint statement was accordingly recorded. Sensing collusion of respondent/counsel with the defendants, questioning his professional impropriety and misconduct, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum which was accepted. However, in appeal while setting aside the impugned order, State Commission also took view that in view of nature of allegation made in the complaint, the matter had to be relegated to civil court for regular trial. Though respondent pleaded before court below and court had passed order of status quo in presence of petitioner, that was disputed by the latter. Be that as it may, there was no tacit evidence about collusion of respondent with defendant, except making some bald assertions in the complaint. That apart, in the matter of professional impropriety and/or misconduct, remedies are available to petitioner for initiating proceedings under Advocates Act or for disciplinary action, by Bar Council. We accordingly, find no merit with revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER