Case nº Revision Petition No. 3083 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 11/08/2016 in Appeal No. 54/2014 of the State Commission Delhi) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 23, 2016 (case Kashish Developers Ltd. Vs 1. Mahesh Kumar and Anr. 2. Corporate Real Estate Solutions)
|For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Baid, Adv.
|Mrs. M. Shreesha,Presiding Member
|November 23, 2016
|National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission had dismissed the Revision Petition No.54 of 2014 for non-appearance as none had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner not only on 11.08.2016 but also on the last date of hearing. The matter was kept awaited till 3 p.m. and as the Petitioner had failed to appear, the Revision Petition was dismissed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the District Forum in CC No.131 of 2014 had passed ex parte interim order during admission of the Complaint against the Petitioner/Opposite Party restraining them from cancelling the allotment of the flat of the Complainant and also from creating third party interest on the concerned flat. There was also a direction to the Opposite Party to keep one flat unsold during the pendency of the Complaint. The District Forum issued notice to the Opposite Party for their appearance on 28.04.2014, on which date the Opposite Party filed an Application seeking dismissal of the Complaint Case No.131 of 2014 on the ground that the District Forum lacked Territorial Jurisdiction and Pecuniary Jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. On 09.06.2014, the District Forum dismissed the Application vide its order dated 28.04.2014. Against this dismissal, the Opposite Party preferred Revision Petition No.54 of 2014 before the State Commission which was listed for hearing on 28.10.2015, when he did not appear. The same was adjourned to 11.08.2016. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner herein submitted that it was on account of personal difficulty of the Counsel for the Respondent, that it was adjourned to 11.08.2016 and on 11.08.2016, the Counsel could not appear as there was a bonafide mistake in noting the next date of hearing as 15.09.2016 instead of 11.08.2016 and the Commission had dismissed the Revision Petition in default for non-appearance. Learned Counsel submitted that there was a few matters against the same Builder before the State Commission and some before the District Forum and...
To continue readingRequest your trial