Rajasthan

StateCommission

RP/51/2015

Amit Colonizers Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Hemlata Lodi w/o Sunder Singh Lodi - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Nimocha

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 51/2015

 

Amit Colonizers Ltd. Riya Avenue, E-97 Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

Vs.

Smt.Hemlata Lodi w/o Sunder Singh Lodi r/o House of Navaria, Near Bhomiaji ka neem, Mandi Khatikan, Delhi Road, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 16.9.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member

 

Mr. Ashish Minocha counsel for revision petitioner

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This revision petition has been filed against the order

2

 

passed by the learned DCF Jaipur Ist dated 4.10.2013 by which it closed the reply of the opposite party and the file was fixed for evidence of the complainant on 23.12.2013. On 23.12.2013 the complainant has produced his evidence but on the same date the learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted its reply which was taken on record by the learned DCF provided cost of Rs.500/- is paid. The complainant came into revision against the order dated 23.12.2013 by which the DCF had accepted the written statement on the ground that DCF had no power to review its order dated 4.10.2013 by which it had closed the reply. The revision petition no. 7/2014 filed by the complainant was allowed by this Commission on 22.7.2015.

 

The opposite party has filed this revision against order dated 4.10.2013 by which the reply was closed after a delay of 607 days. The explanation of this delay is that since the complainant had filed a revision petition against the order dated 23.12.2013 hence they were not required to file any revision against the order dated 4.10.2013. Since this Commission has quashed the order of the DCF dated 23.12.2013, it has become necessary for the opposite party to challenge the order dated 4.10.2013. The learned counsel has submitted that the DCF may

 

3

 

be directed to consider the reply and evidence submitted by the opposite party.

 

The learned counsel for the opposite party has cited before us 2012 NCJ 851 (NC) Post Master office Vs. Samadhan Subash Patil, 2012 NCJ 818 (NC ) Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Mr.Vasantkumar H.Khandelwal, 2013 NCJ 437 (NC) Ambience Island Apartment Owners Vs. Raj Singh Gehlot, 2014 NCJ 668 (NC) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Gyan Singh. We are of the view that these judgments does not help the revisionist in the present matter.

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party. We are of the view that the DCF cannot now be directed by this Commission to consider the reply and evidence produced by the opposite party on 23.12.2013 as we have already quashed this order by our order dated 22.7.2015.

 

The next argument of the opposite party is that the order dated 22.7.2015 passed by this Commission was only on the ground that the DCF has no right to recall its order in view of the judgment passed in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Kashinath wherein it was held that DCF had no right to recall its order. He

4

 

has submitted that question of correctness of the order dated 4.10.2013 was not considered on merits.

 

Having heard the learned counsel and considering the record, we are of the opinion that this revision is not maintainable when we have held in our previous order dated 22.7.2015 that learned DCF had no right to accept the written statement and evidence produced on 23.12.2013 when on the previous date it had already closed the reply of the opposite party. Thus, the order dated 4.10.2013 had attained finality and this revision petition is dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm