Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. This Revision Petition is listed today for hearing on admission. We have heard advocate Mr.V.G.Bondate for the petitioner and perused the record and proceedings of the revision petition. The petitioners’ advocate today filed an application seeking permission to produce the documents. The production of the said documents is allowed. We have perused all the documents placed before us by the petitioner.
2. The respondents herein filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum below seeking direction to the petitioner/original opposite party to execute the sale deed inrespect of a plot specified in the complaint in their favour and to develop the lay out by constructing road, sewerage, provide water and electricity facility for the users and other amenities in the lay out, to bear the expenses of execution of the sale deed and alternatively to refund Rs.3,51,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. and also to pay compensation equivalent to 20 times of present value of the plot in the area and to pay him litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and further compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment.
3. The District Forum below issued notice of that complaint to the petitioner/original opposite party. However the petitioner did not file reply to the complaint but filed an application for dismissal of the complaint. As per that application, the complainant and the opposite party decided to cancel the agreement with respect to plot No.15 and complainant chose another plot of big size bearing No.7 and opposite party will execute the sale deed of that plot No.7 infavour of the complainant. Moreover as per the said application the complainant paid consideration of Rs.3,51,000/- to the opposite party/petitioner inrespect of the price of plot No.7. But the complainant is avoiding to pay remaining consideration with intention to cheat the opposite party and he filed a false complaint at Hingna Police Station against the opposite party. Hence the opposite party filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Session Court Nagpur which was rejected. Hence the opposite party filed another anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble High Court which passed an order directing the opposite party to deposit Rs.4,14,000/- with the Hon’ble High Court and the complainant was given liberty to withdraw that amount. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. It was therefore requested in that application by the petitioner that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The Forum below after hearing both the parties on that application, passed the impugned order on 22/03/2018. The Forum concluded in that order that only liberty is given to the complainant to withdraw the amount deposited by the opposite party and that compliance of condition of the bail does not mean that the consumer dispute is over and no cause of action is survived to proceed with the complaint. The Forum also observed that without filing of reply to the complaint, the application can not be considered. Hence the Forum directed the opposite party to file the written version to the complaint. Accordingly the Forum rejected the application.
5. The learned advocate of the petitioner submitted that the Forum did not consider the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. According to him the complainant cheated the opposite party and filed false complaint before the Forum. According to him as the opposite party already deposited an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- to the Hon’ble High Court and as liberty is given to the complainant to withdraw that amount, there is no question of now filing consumer complaint before the Forum for seeking the aforesaid relief. Thus according to him, the impugned order is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside.
6. However, we find that the Forum below rightly observed in the impugned order that the consumer dispute is not over simply by disputing an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- with the Hon’ble High Court by the opposite party/petitioner. We find that the dispute is not simply relating to recovery of Rs.4,14,000/- from the opposite party. The actual dispute is relating to sale deed and in alternatively for refund of money with interest and compensation. The complainant in the complaint not only sought a sale deed but also sought several other directions to be given to the opposite party as specified above in para No.2. Therefore we find that an opportunity needs to be granted to both parties to adduce evidence to prove their respective case. The petitioner has not yet filed reply to the complaint. Therefore the Forum rightly directed the petitioner/opposite party initially to file the written version and that without any reply, application can not be considered. Thus we find that it is necessary to consider and decide all issues involved in the complaint simultaneously after giving opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties. Hence we find no fault and the error in the impugned order and thus the revision petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly following order is passed.
// ORDER //
- The Revision Petition is dismissed.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
