State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Umesh Bajaj & Another vs M/S. Adarsh Developers on 29 July, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED: 29/07/2011 PRESENT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No. 2187/2011 1. Umesh Bajaj S/o. Bhimsen Bajaj Aged about 61 years. 2. Mrs. Neeta Bajaj, W/o. Umesh Bajaj Aged about 52 years. Both are R/at J-05, Diamond District Airport Road, Bangalore 560008 (By Shri/Smt K. Shashi Kiran Shetty) . DHrs./Complainant before the DF .....Appellant/s -Versus- M/s. Adarsh Developers Office at 10, Vittal Malya Road Bangalore 560001 .. JDr.,/Opposite Party before the DF .....Respondent/s ORDER
HONBLE JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This appeal is filed under Section 27 A of the C.P Act, 1986 by the DHrs., 1 and 2 to set aside the order dated 15-06-2011 passed by the IV Addl., DF, Bangalore in E.P. No. 158/2009 whereby the E.P came to be dismissed on ground that, there is no jurisdiction for keeping the matter pending. Therefore, he has come up with this appeal on various grounds.
2. Heard the counsel for the appellants on admission and perused the records.
3. It is not in dispute that, the appellant herein had obtained a decree/order in Complaint No. 510/2004 dated 03-09-200. The very petitioners have preferred the Revision Petition No. 22/2010 challenging the order dated 03-09-2010 passed by the IV Addl., DF, in E.P No. 158/2010. This Commission dismissed the revision petition at the stage of admission and the very respondents who have challenged the order dated 03-09-2010 passed by the IV Addl., DF, in W.P No. 33040/2010 (GM-CON) came to be dismissed holding that in view of the order dated 15-12-2010 passed by the DF, the Writ Petition filed by this respondents challenging the appointment of the Court Commissioner came to be dismissed. But the DHrs., have not persuaded to comply the order. The DF has directed the JDr., to comply the same by putting the DHr., in possession and got the khata transferred in his name.
4. The present appellants have not shown any interest in prosecuting the E.P. Therefore, the DF rightly dismissed the E.P for non prosecution. If the E.P is dismissed for non-prosecution, the remedy available for him before the DF is to restore the E.P. In this behalf a reference may be made to a decision in the case of Vishakha Munjal (DR) Vs. Ayesha Farhat & Another in III (2011) CPJ 229 (NC) wherein it has been held that;
In the absence of complainant Court/Quasi judicial body within its jurisdiction to dismiss complaint for non-prosecution It also have inherent powers and jurisdiction to restore complaint on good cause being shown for non-appearance of complainant.
5. In the instant case, since the Execution Petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that, they have not shown any interest in prosecuting the case. Therefore, they are entitled to seek restoration of the E.P before the said Court. With this observation, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, liberty is given to them to approach the DF seeking restoration of the E.P. PRESIDENT MEMBER Rhr* *