Order No.4 dtd.07.11.2022
The R.A. Case No 2/2022 arising out of C.C.Case No. 33/2021 filed by the Jdr with application under Sec-5 of Limitation Act. The delay condoned by this Commission & disposing it on merit. This Commission was pleased to passed the order dt. 04.07.22 where it was directed that the Jdr shall release the loan amount to the Complainant Rs. 1,36,000/- alongwith Rs. 30,000/- for mentally agony undergone & Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order & failing which @9% P.A. shall be payable till its realization. The Jdr neither release the loan amount not paid the amount for mental agony & also for litigation cost. Instead of complying the order either party or wholly the Jdr filed present Review application.
We have gone through the provision under C.P.Act ofSec-40 and so also O47R4 of CPc and so also Sec-114 of CPc.
Sec-114 of CPc
- Which provided any person considering himself aggrieved by order from which an appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred.
- No appeal as allowed.
- Xxxx
Order 47 Rule4(i) of CPc
Where application rejected, where it appears to the Court that these is no sufficient ground for review, it shall reject the application.
Application where granted ;
Where the court is of opinion that the review application shall be granted it shall grant the same.
Sec-40 of C.P.Act, 2019
The DCDRC shall have the power to review to any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. We are concerned with the decree holder already received the notice & the law on order -4 of Rule4(2)(a) of Cpc complied with. On question of O47R4(2)(b) no such additional evidence produced by the Jdr which could have been produced in the C.C.Case. Therefore we are deciding the review application as per the fact & law as before in the C.C.Case. The Jdr without having any RBI approved & necessary Central/State Govt. permission accepting deposit of money without following Central/State Govt. rules. They are receiving money & accepting deposit of huge amount from the General Public throughout India and also in Odisha. Thousands crores of money miss-appropriated by the Jdr and not returning the maturity value after several years of deposit of fixed deposit and converting re-investment of hard earned maturity money of General Public. All the people including decree holders are not members of the Co-Operative Society. How a society regd. in Lucknow accepting members from various states of India. The financial illegality of the Jdr prejudiced so many innocent people in a false promise of high return by the Jdr. The Jdr’s activity is like chit fund where people lost their all hard earned money. The Jdr’s contention raised in the review application are devoid of merit & the cases cited by Jdr in the review application are not sustainable in the eye of law.
Further acceptance of General Public as a member of Co-Operative Society are void ab-initio. No one can taken anybody’s money within the society & refuse to return the same. Admittedly this Commission after giving many opportunities to the Ops, but the same not appeared on several occasions. The Complainant’s grievance was only to avail a loan by security of Fixed deposit to the same amount. Why a finance Company received fixed deposit, unable to furnish loan to the same person & also misappropriated thousand cores of money of the innocent people from the State of Odisha.
The Jdr as per record sufficiently noticed & given sufficient time to file written version the opportunity not availed by the Ops & relinquished the same. The Ops have various collection offices in Panchayat level, Block level & district level and furnishing maturity certificate in various address. When the Complainant victimized knocked the door of DCDRC a quasi-judicial body established by statute having appropriate jurisdiction to redress the same can’t wait to the sweet will of the Ops to decide a dispute before it. The C.C.Case No. 33/2021 disposed off after exercising its jurisdiction vested with it. No error found which was already passed. Finally no error apparent found to interfere with the previous order already passed.
O R D E R
Having perused the order passed in 4th July, 2022 and the grounds urged in the R.A. Application support of the review of the said order, We are of the considered view the R.A. No. 2/2022 is bereft of any merit since all the grounds were duly considered at the time of order sought to be reviewed. We do not found any such mistake apparent on record. Consequently, the R.A. No. 2/2022 is hereby dismissed & accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
