Mr. Hitender Yadav, counsel for revisionist.
There is a delay of 140 days in filing of this revision petition and to condone the same; an application (M.A. No. 370 of 2024) has been filed, which is supported by an affidavit. Application stands allowed for reasons mentioned therein and delay of 140 days in filing of this revision petition stands condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed off.
Present revision petition has been preferred against order dated 25.07.2023 passed by District Consumer Commission-Sonepat vide which it has been held that Jd/revisionist is liable to pay Rs. 6,93,705/-with interest. Along with revision petition application (M.A. No. 375 of 2024) for interim relief/stay has also been filed. While urging for interim relief/stay learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that: DH-respondent has been granted alternative plot No. 161, Sector-7, Sonepat, which was accepted by him; revisionist/JD has also paid Rs.12,10,731/- to DH-respondent in compliance of order dated 23.02.2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2004. Learned counsel for revisionist further contended that after accepting this alternative plot; DH-respondent does not have any subsisting claim, so far as, plot No.231, Sector-8, Sonepat is concerned and further it is urged that DH has deposited Rs.77,754/- on 21.06.2005, Rs.92,520/- on 06.02.2006 and Rs.67,000/- on 07.02.2007 at his own, without there being any demand by revisionist. Learned counsel for revisionist has contended that in view of above facts; order dated 25.07.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission is illegal.
These contentions of learned counsel for revisionist, prime-facie carries credence. This being so, implementation of impugned order dated 25.07.2023 would remain stayed during pendency of this revision petition. Application (M.A. No.375 of 2024) for stay stands disposed off. Notice of revision petition be issued to respondent-Sunil Kumar through registered post returnable for 21.08.2024.
