Haryana

StateCommission

RP/27/2015

Mrs. Sunil Dahiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Mapsko Builders Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.27 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 31.03.2015

Date of Decision: 08.05.2017

 

Mrs. Sunil Dahiya W/o Anup Singh Dahiya, R/o H.NO.3239, Sector 15, Sonepat.

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

1.      The Manager Mapsko Builders Pvt. Ltd. 52, North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi 110026.

2.      The site Manager/Sale Executive Mapsko Builders Pvt. Ltd. Mapsko City Homes, Sector 27, Sonepat through Sh.Gagan Chawla.

          .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.J.S. Nara, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondents.

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          This revision has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short “District Forum”) vide which respondent was directed to deliver possession of ground floor of plot No.ME 189 in Block ME instead of Block ME 62 to 70 and 73 to 81.

2.      Revisionist filed a complaint for allotment of independent ground floor in block ME 73 to 81 was and 62 to 70 in East which was allowed by District Forum vide order dated 28.06.2011.

3.      O.ps. preferred an appeal against that order before this commission which was decided vide order dated 25.07.2011.

4.      Aggrieved from that order O.ps. preferred revision petition No.3479 of 2011 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (In short “National Commission”) which was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2013, wherein it was specifically opined that the said petition was nothing, but, a gross abuse of process of law.

5.      Thereafter complainant filed an execution petition wherein it was alleged by JDs that offer of allotment was made qua plot No.189 in ME Block and not alleged by him.

6.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short “District Forum”) has passed impugned order.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      Neither in the reply nor in appeal or revision it was alleged by O.Ps. that complainant was not entitled for allotment of independent flour as alleged by him.  This stand was taken for the first time by O.Ps. when execution petition was filed. If it was not so O.Ps. should have raised this plea before State Commission or Hon’ble National Commission. Why they kept mum at that time is no-where explained.  File must have gone through so many hand so it cannot be considered as inadvertent lapse.  Further more it is well settled that executing court cannot go beyond the main order. The executing court is bound to execute the order passed in the main petition. This views are also fortified by opinion of  Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in State Bank of India Vs. Indexport Registered and Ors 1992 SCR (2) 1031 and opinion of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed in Civil Revision No.2808 of 2013 titled as Municipal  Corporation Vs.Amrinder Singh and others decided on 11.12.2013.  Resultantly impugned order dated 19.12.2014 is set aside and revision petition is allowed.

 

May 08th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.