West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/88/2012

Sri Swapan Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sita Devi Agarwal - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 Complaint case No. 88/2012                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kopot Chattopadhyay.    

     Sri Swapan  Sahoo, S/o-Manik Chandra Sahoo, C/O-Durjoy Goswami at Mirza Bazar

     Dakshin Kumor para, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali,Dist-Paschim Medinipur……Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Smt. Sita Devi Agarwal, W/o-Sri Satya Narayan Agarwal;
2. Sri Ankur Lodha, S/o-Sri Kamal Kishor Lodha;
3. Sri Santosh Gupta, S/o-Sri Iswar Nath Gupta;
4. Sri Asesh Sanyal, S/o-Sri Debesh Chandra Sanyal

      all are Partner of M/s-Rukmani Commercial Corporation at Pragati Complex ( Ground Floor) opposite to Midnapore Zilla Parishad, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

5.  LIC Housing Finance Ltd., LIC, CAB Branch Building, Malancha Road, P.O.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur .………………Ops.

Order No.02                                                                                        Dated:-25/05/12                     

              The case is moved on the point of admission. The application for interim order filed by the complainant is also moved. Hd. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant perused the materials on record.  Considered.

             By filing this case the complainant has sought for certain direction upon the Ops. relying upon the deed of agreement entered into by the complainant as well as the Ops. The said agreement was entered into the parties on 13^th day of February 2011. It was stipulated in that agreement that the Ops. shall make over the possession of the complete flat to the complainant with 24 months of        

                the date of execution of the agreement. Naturally, a considerable period of time is left to complete the time as per the deed of agreement. Naturally, the directions as prayed for in the original case cannot be given at the stage. The present case appears to be premature and hence, it is not admitted.

              Consequently, the question of granting any interim order does not arise.

 

                       Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                           Sd/-

                   Member                                      Member                                   President      

                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.