This is a complaint filed by Amitava Hore and Sumita Hore against Zoraima Developments & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Dipankar Karmakar, Sipra Naskar, and Subhra Guha, OPs, praying for a direction upon the OPs to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants in respect of the schedule flat and also for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment, agony and unfair trade practice and another sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards litigation cost.
Facts, in brief, are that Complainants are the bona fide purchasers of a flat measuring about 600 sft. on the 3rd floor, at Premises No. 49/64, Prince Golam Md. Shah Road, Kolkata – 700 033. The Complainants entered into an agreement for sale with the OP No. 1, represented by the OP No. 2 on 15-12-1991 for the purpose of purchasing the above mentioned flat at a total consideration of Rs. 2,39,400/-. OP No. 1 duly constructed the 4-storied building as per the sanction plan and after completion of the building and on receipt of entire consideration amount from the Complainants, handed over the flat to the Complainants on 09-02-1994. Immediately after taking possession of the flat, the Complainants asked for execution of the Deed of Conveyance to both the landowners as well as the Developer, but to no avail. After lapse of some time, the Complainants again approached the OPs to do the needful, but this time too, none of them pay any heed to their pleadings. Thereafter, the OP No. 1 closed the office and OP No. 2 was not traceable in anyway. Out of wit’s end, the original landowner was approached on several occasions, but citing her ill health, she avoided rendering any assistance to the Complainants. Meanwhile, Complaiannts learnt that other flat owners have registered their respective flats in their names. After that, the Complainants issued legal notice, but of no use. So, the Complainants filed this case.
OP Nos. 3&4 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the Complainants. They have stated that they do not have any knowledge of any development agreement. Further, they have alleged that the complaint has been filed long after 24 years. So, it is time barred. Be it mentioned here that, although these OPs appeared initially and filed WV, subsequently they did not contest the case. So, the case was heard ex parte against them.
Others OPs neither appeared nor filed written version.
Decision with reasons
Main point for determination is whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for.
In the present case, it appears on perusal of the complaint that the main relief sought for is for an order/direction upon the OPs to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants in respect of the schedule property.
Admittedly, the Agreement for Sale was executed in between the Complainants and the OP Nos. 1&2 on 15-12-1991 and they got possession of the flat in question on 09-02-1994, whereas the instant case is filed on 28-12-2015, i.e., after nearly 24 years from the date of execution of the Agreement for Sale and 21 years from the date of taking physical possession of the schedule flat.
In the form of explanation of the delay in filing the complaint, it is asserted by the Complainants that they approached the OPs on several occasions to execute the Deed of Conveyance. However, it is indeed surprising that they have not specified the dates when they allegedly approached the OPs, nor copy of any written representation is filed to support such claim. 24 years is a long long time and during this period, much water has flown down the Ganges. As we know, it is the cardinal principle of law that each and every day delay should be properly explained. Clearly, the complaint petition is time barred. In absence of satisfactory explanation/cogent documentary proof, we afraid, such huge delay cannot be condoned.
Further, on perusal of the photocopy of Agreement for Sale, it transpires that the same was executed in between Amitava Hore & Sumita Hore on one side and Dipankar Karmakar on the other side and OP Nos. 3 and 4 did not put their signatures in any page of the said agreement. So, we are of view that, insofar as OP Nos. 3&4 were not party to such agreement, they cannot be held liable to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants in any manner.
Accordingly, the Complainants are not entitled to any relief.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/109/2015 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OPs. No order as to costs.
