Dated:13.01.2022

ORDER

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is a Revision Petition filed by OP in CC/56/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2022.

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

3. It is found from the papers available with the appeal that  Consumer Complaint was raised by Mr.Yashawanth Kumar G.N against OP, M/s Kamalya Builders and Developers LLP, through advocate on 16.09.2020, wherein at the stage of hearing the reply arguments on merits, as an IA-2 came to be filed by OP with a request to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable, in view of pendency of O.S.No.32/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna and since   OP insist for passing an order on the said I.A. the Commission below, having heard both counsels passed an order referring catena of decisions and held – “When the matter is stood for arguments of parties, that too after filing of written arguments by the complainant, the OP came up with this baseless application which clearly shows that with an intention to drag on proceedings and also to waste the time of the Commission filed application”,   dismissed  the IA and imposed cost of Rs.10,000/-   payable to the complainant and it is this order being assailed in this Revision Petition.

4. At the stage of hearing the arguments, learned counsel for respondent/complainant submitted a memo without prejudice to his contentions, complainant undertakes that till disposal of the case CC/56/2020 on merits he will not press the impugned order dated 27.10.2022.  In other words, complainant will not press to execute the order to recover Rs.10,000/- but facts remained when the main matter was set for hearing the arguments, in our view even if such an IA came to be filed by the OP in view of filing of O.S.No.32/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, could have been disposed off the same along with the complaint itself.  In other words, instead of passing an order on IA-2, Commission below could have taken up the said IA along with the main matter itself.  Learned Counsel for the OP/appellant submits that the Commission below failed to perceive the fact that such an I.A is filed by OP in view of filing of comprehensive suit on the file of competent Civil Court and the Commission below wrongly held that such an I.A. filed to procrastinate the proceedings and submits that the I.A. also could have been heard along with the main matter itself has some legal consideration. In view of such circumstances, in our view, imposing of cost of Rs.10,000/- has to be held a harsh decision required to be interfered in this revision.  Of course, the Commission below came heavily on the OP in order to discourage filing spurious application but facts remain herein such I.A filed in view of filing of a civil suit. In our view, the Commission below failed to exercise its wisdom to dispose off the IA along with the main complaint itself since the main matter is already set for hearing the arguments.  In such view of the matter, the impugned order in so far as imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- is hereby set-aside with a direction to Commission below to decide the main complaint in accordance with law as early as possible not later than three months and to consider how much cost has to be imposed in the main complaint in consideration of the I.A. in question since held cost of the I.A. is the cost in the cause.  Accordingly, Revision Petition stands disposed off.

5. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

        Lady Member                             Judicial Member     

*GGH*