Date of Filing :04.09.2024
Date of Disposal :04.10.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:04.10.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRI. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE (R )-
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
REVISION PETITION NO.216/2024
Mr. S. Ravi
S/o Mr. S.Srinivasaiah
Aged about 55 years
No.32/1, 3rd Floor
2nd Main Road (above RBL Bank)
Vyalikaval, Near Bhashyam Circle
Sadashivanaar
Bengaluru-560 080
(By Mr. N.M.Thyagaraj, Advocate) Petitioner
-Versus-
Mr Mohamed Aneesulla
Aged about 67 years
S/o Mr Mohamed Samiulla
Residing at No.70 (1), KEB Circle
NGO’s Hall Road
Shimoga-577 201 Respondent
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a Revision Petition filed by one Mr. S.Ravi, S/o Sri. S.Srinivasaiah. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that decree holder has obtained an award against J.Drs 1 and 2 viz., Mr V.Nandagopal and Mrs. Shashikala Belagod, in other words, Revision Petitioner is not a party either to such award obtained by Decree Holder or to the Execution Application 52/2017 pending on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru. However, he was ordered to be impleaded as one of the J.Dr pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2023 passed on IA under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of CPC. In this regard Learned counsel submits that before passing the order dated 08.11.2023 no notice was issued to the proposed party namely the Revision Petitioner herein has considerable force.
2. Let us examine the Revision papers, wherein, found Mr M.N.T Advocate files Vakalath for J.Dr on 05.03.2024 after due service of notice ordered against Revision Petitioner after he was brought on record as one of the J.Dr, and the executing commission, ordered to issue NBW against Revision Petitioner through concerned police. It is this action of the executing commission is questioned in this revision on the ground that before issuance of NBW or Arrest Warrant as the case may be, he was not heard. In our view, when an I.A. under order I rule 10(2) came to be filed before allowing the said I.A. notice of the said I.A. could have been issued on the proposed party, which is missing, in other words not followed the principles of being heard before passing an adverse order. In such view of the matter, it would be just and proper to direct Bangalore Urban DCDRC in exercise of powers vested under Order 47(1) (b) of CP Act, 2019 order to set aside the order on I.A. in the matter and directed the executing commission to hear learned counsel for Revision Petitioner/the proposed party and pass order afresh. It goes without saying issuance of NBW if issued has to be recalled as the EA hearing goes back to the date of hearing on I.A. in question. Accordingly, Revision Petition stands disposed of by condoning the delay if any.
3. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
