15.07.2022

                                                                                                   ORDER

       The Revision Petitioners/JDRs preferred this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the order made by the District Commission on IA.No.1 in EA.No.129/2019 to implead the Builder i.e. M/s BSR Enterprises as a necessary party in the execution proceedings and submits that the complainant in fact had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service for not allotting and registering the site in his favour inspite of sufficient time provided.  During the course of trial, the matter came to be compromised by filing a Joint Memo duly signed by the complainant, Opposite Party/Revision Petitioner and one builder M/s BSR Enterprises who were entrusted for development of the land into sites and agreed to register the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant within July 2019, but, after a lapse of stipulated time, the builder is not able to develop the land and accordingly, this Revision Petitioner is not able to register the Sale Deed.   For which the complainant filed Execution Application No.129/2019 and made this Revision Petitioner only as a party to the execution.  After receipt of the notice, they have filed an application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. to implead the builder in the execution proceedings and proceed against them, but, the District Commission dismissed the IA for the reason that the Execution Application is filed by the complainant is purely civil in nature and application filed u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., hence, rejected.  Therefore, the Revision Petitioner prays before this Commission that the District Commission has made an error in not considering the application filed by the as the Execution Application filed u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, hence, the application is maintainable and prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and permit the Builder to be impleaded in the Execution Application in the interest of justice and equity.

2.      On perusal of the Order passed by the District Commission and Revision Petition along with Compromise Petition entered between the Revision Petitioners and the complainant, it is very clear that the Revision Petitioners/ Opposite Parties have undertaken to complete the registration formalities within July 2019 and inserted a sentence that subject to the Opposite Party develops i.e. M/s BSR Enterprises completes the formalities of the layout and handover the possession of the fully developed layout to this Opposite Party and M/s BSR Enterprises also signed the Joint Memo.  Basing on the Joint Memo, the complaint was dismissed and after a lapse of July 2019, the complainant initiated Execution Application for registration of the site, but, the Revision Petitioners have filed an application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading the said builder as a party to the Execution Application as he has not still completed the work undertaken by him and the Execution Application has to be proceeded against the said Builder also.  But the arguments submitted by the learned counsel is not acceptable as because the society was formed for the purpose of allotting sites to its members and it is only an internal arrangement by the society which entrusted the work for development of the layout.  There is no direct nexus with the said builder and the complainant.  It is a sole responsibility of the Revision Petitioner/JDRs/Opposite Parties to register the Sale Deed well within time whereas the Revision Petitioner failed to do so and mere signing the Compromise Petition does not make a ground for impleading the Builder in the Execution Application.  Hence, the Order passed by the District Commission by dismissing the application holds good and no merits found in the Revision Petition.  Hence, the following;

:ORDER:

The Revision Petition is dismissed.

    Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*