Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member:- This revision petition is directed against the ex-parte interim relief passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban on 01/10/2010 in consumer complaint no. 560/2010. Said complaint was filed before the Forum below against the owners and developer, who is developing adjacent property and in that complaint the main prayer of the Shweta Apartment Co-Operative Society Ltd. is about conveyance. It is the statutory duty of the present developer developing the property to execute deed of conveyance in favour of the society, once the flats are constructed and occupancy certificate is granted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. A clause no.23 in development agreement also can be seen with profit in this respect. In the said clause, it is clearly mentioned that after the purchasers are in possession of the flat and after formation of the Co-operative Housing Society, the builder-developer would execute deed of conveyance and it is sad to note that till today after about 21 years, the owner and developer has not executed conveyance deed in favour of Co-operative Housing Society, which itself is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opp.party no.1 and opp.party no.2 is starting construction deriving the development rights from opp.party no.1. He was rightly joined to the complaint pending in the Forum below and after hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the Forum below thought it fit to pass the order of status quo ex-parte pending the returnable notice to the opponent. Under these Circumstances, we are of the view that there is no urgency made out for our interference at this stage because the next date is 23/11/2010 fixed for return of notice and on that day as per notice, the opp.party is required to file written reply to the interim relief application after shutting their appearance. Then Forum below will decide whether to pass order in terms of interim relief or not. Hence, in our view this revision petition is a pre-matured one which is required to be rejected summarily. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgements of this Commission but the facts of the present case is quite different. In one judgement there was question of disconnection of electricity connection by Torrent Power Ltd. But Forum had granted ad-interim injunction without hearing the electric company and we intervened because there was huge bill payable by the consumer. In those circumstances, the order passed ex-parte was quashed by us. In other case of The General Manager, Citibank and ors.V/s. Sameer Akbar Hussain Hamirani, we found on merit that order passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum granting interim relief was uncalled for and therefore ,we were pleased to quashed the said order. In the case in hand the order is passed by the Forum below is status quo order and the status quo order is not equivalent to interim relief. Therefore, we are of the view that two judgements relied upon by Adv.Patwardhan has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under these circumstances, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Revision petition stand rejected. 2. No order as to costs. 3.Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule in force. | 
