Respondent / complainant had filed complaint against M/s Sankalp Construction – petitioner / opposite party through its partners - Prabhakar Pandurang Bhosle and Vandana Prabhakar Bhosle, seeking direction to the petitioner to complete the construction of flat no.8, to hand over possession thereof and to pay total amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation and cost. Complaint was contested by filing written version by the petitioner. One of the pleas taken in written version was that no agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent in regard to the flat in question. During the pendency of complaint, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the complaint. Referring to the said objection taken in written version it was stated that petitioner wants to wriggle out of their liability towards the respondent and cause title of the complaint may be allowed to be substituted as under:-

“M/s Sankalp Construction (Pune) Pvt. Limited

Through their Managing Director

Prabhakar Pandurang Bhosale

Add:- Sankalp Nagari, S.No.82/2, Dhanori Pune

In place of

M/s Sankalp Construction through its partners

Prabhakar Pandurang Bhosale

Vandana Prabhakar Bhosale

Having its office at,

Sankalp Nagari, Visharantwadi,

Dhanori, Pune.”

          It was claimed that the amendment sought is necessary and if not allowed would cause irreparable loss to the respondent. Application was contested by filing reply by the petitioner. Vide order dated 24.6.2009, the District Forum allowed the amendment application. Against Forum’s order, the petitioner filed R.P. No. 24 of 2010 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai which was dismissed by the order dated 25.2.2010.  It is these two orders which are under challenge in this revision.

          Thrust of argument advanced by Shri Rahul S. Gandhi whom we have heard on admission, is that the amendment was allowed by the order dated 24.6.2009 by the District Forum without recording any reason and State Commission has affirmed the Forum’s order by giving its reasons and the orders passed by fora below are thus not legally sustainable. Reliance has been placed on the decision in The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and another, AIR  1976 SC 1785.  Agreement for sale of the flat in question dated 1.3.2007 (copy at pages 36 to 56) would show that the same was entered into between the respondent and M/s Sankalp Construction (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. which  has been allowed to be substituted in place of M/s Sankalp Construction - Petitioner.

Obviously, plea raised in written version of there being no  agreement for sale of the flat in question between the parties is based on this agreement dated 1.3.2007. It is true that in the order dated 24.6.2009 reason for allowing amendment application has not been recorded which the District Forum was supposed to give. In the amendment application reasons in brief have been disclosed for permitting the amendment prayed for. Forum’s order dated 24.6.2009 is an interlocutory order. State Commission’s order would show that since it was of the view that real parties had been brought on record by amendment it declined to interfere with the Forum’s order.

In this backdrop, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd.’s case (supra) was rendered on the facts of that case and is not of much assistance to the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.