Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2532/2024

SYED NIZAM ALI, - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.NARAYANA SHETTY , - Opp.Party(s)

aslam khan

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/2532/2024
( Date of Filing : 20 Sep 2024 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 21/06/2024 in Case No. EA/104/2020 of District Mysore)
 
1. SYED NIZAM ALI,
S/O. LATE TAHER ALI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, MYSORE HOME DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.545, 2ND STAGE, RAJIV NAGAR, MYSORE- 570 009.
MYSURU
KARNATAKA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. T.NARAYANA SHETTY ,
S/O. LATE T.RAJUSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B-002, SPRING FIELDS, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE -560 102.
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA
2. MRS. PARAMESHWARI
W/O. T.NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOAUT 60 YEARS, ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B 002, SPRING FIELDS, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 102.
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Sep 2024
Final Order / Judgement

26.09.2024:

ORDER

Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.

 

01.   This is an Appeal filed by JDR in EA No.104/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, aggrieved by the order dated: 21.06.2024.

 

02.   The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.

 

03.   The Appeal is set to hear on admission.  Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order and proceedings in EA No.104/2020 till 21.08.2024 and found satisfied to dispense with issuance of notice of this Appeal to be served on Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to avoid delay, keeping in mind   the object of Consumer Protection Act.

04.    Learned counsel for Appellant/JDR sought for setting aside the order dated: 21.06.2024 passed on IA filed by DHR under order XXI Rule 54 of CPC on the grounds that, no opportunity has been provided to JDR to file objections to the said IA and he was not heard.  In our view, when an IA was filed under XXI Rule 54 of CPC seeking attachment of immovable property furnishing property documents, even if without hearing the JDR, on the said application, executing commission, passed an order   attaching the schedule property, which could not be said either an order or a final order passed  to be assailed under section 73 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, since JDR is still had an opportunity to raise objections to the IA for such attachment of immovable property and the   executing Commission is empower to decide such questions before passing an absolute order.  In such view of the matter, we proceed to dismiss the Appeal with an observation that, JDR can raise objections before the executing Commission by furnishing required documents that the attached property could not be sold for the amount under EA in the matter. With this observation directed the executing Commission to decide on such questions/objections, affording opportunity to both parties. 

05.    It is hereby advised parties, in particular the JDR to settle the dispute amicably through negotiation.

06.    Send copy of this order to both parties for their information.

           Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

KNMP*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.