Revision Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2014. Case: Sujit Kumar Dhar Vs Sovereigh Developers and Infrastructure Ltd.. Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberRevision Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and A. Manjunath, Advocate and For Respondents: M.S. Purushotham, Advocate
JudgesK. Ramanna, J. (President) and G.T. Vijayalakshmi, Member
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXVI Rule 10A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 9
Judgement DateMay 05, 2014
CourtKarnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K. Ramanna, J. (President)

  1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 10.4.2014 passed by the I Additional DF, Bangalore in Complaint Nos. 1730/2013 and 1733/2013 with other connected complaints whereby and whereunder the applications filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A r/w Section 151, CPC came to be allowed directing both parties to give the proposed name of the Commissioner from the Government Agency along with the memorandum of instruction to facilitate the Commissioner for inspection and to submit the report. Further it is ordered that the burden lies on the opposite party to prove their case and directed to meet the expenditure of the Commissioner's expenses by way of fee on production of his report. After issuance of notice, respondents in both the Revision Petitions appeared through Counsel and filed their counter affidavit by way of objections to I.A. seeking for stay.

  2. We have heard the Counsel for both parties and perused the records.

  3. The point for determination to consider is that whether the revision petitioners have shown prima facie and balance of convenience lies in their favour to stay the operation and execution of the order under challenge?

  4. Of course, revision petitioners in both the revisions who are the complainants before the DF filed the complaints against the very respondent i.e., Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure with a prayer to allow the complaints. So during the pendency of the complaints, the respondent/opposite party filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC to appoint Court Commissioner in order to enquire into the matter and ascertain whether the escalation of the flat is justified in the interest of justice and equity.

  5. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of I.A. by the Opposite Party. According to them, they have entered into an agreement of sale in the year 2009. The opposite party has priced the apartments economically with a fond hope to deliver them on the agreed date. However, due to circumstances beyond his control and vis majeure, the prices of basic components like cement, steel, labour, etc., were escalated as high as 300% in some cases and thereby forcing the builder/opposite party either to seek extra money from the agreement holders or abandon the project. With great difficulty by pumping his own funds carried on with the construction activities and, therefore, it was need to raise the cost of the apartments. According...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT