Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S.We Developers Through The ... vs Shri.Rashing N.Anuse And Anr on 13 March, 2024

      STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
                  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI


                            Revision Petition No.RP/22/136
  (Arisen out of order dated 24/08/2022 passed in Complaint No.99 of 2020 by District
                            Commission, Additional Thane)


M/s.We Developers through
The Proprietor - Shri Venugopal Vinayakam,
B/21 Agarwal Trade Centre,
Plot No.62, Sector 11, CBD Belapur,                          ....... Petitioner(s)
Navi Mumbai.
                        Versus

   1. Rashing Namdev Anuse,
      Residing at: House No.A-202, Wing A,
      Vignaharta CHSL, Plot No.3,
      Sector - 9, Kamathe,
      Navi Mumbai - 410 209.

   2. Mrs.Shital Rashing Anuse
      Residing at: House No.A-202, Wing A,
      Vignaharta CHSL, Plot No.3,
      Sector - 9, Kamathe,
      Navi Mumbai - 410 209.                                 .........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
            Justice S.P.Tavade - President
            Poonam V. Maharshi - Member


                                       ORDER
                                     (13/03/2024)

Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.P. Tavade - President:

(1) Advocate Mhatre is present for petitioner. Advocate Rajkumar Jagtap present for respondents. He has filed vakalatnama for respondents. Taken on record.

1

(2) The petitioner has filed this Revision Petition against the order passed by the District Commission rejecting his prayer of entertaining interim application. Said impugned order was passed on 24/08/2022. In the said order it was mentioned that whatever issue raised by the petitioner in the application can be decided at the time of final hearing of the complaint. The said impugned order has been challenged here by way of Revision Petition.

(3) The respondents appeared and filed their say. Today the Respondents have filed copy of the final order passed by the District Commission, Additional Thane in the above complaint. The original complaint is partly allowed. So, the present Revision Petition does not survive as the impugned order is merged into final order passed by the District Commission. The said order is also challenged by the present petitioner by way of appeal. Therefore, this Revision Petition becomes infructuous. Hence, this Revision Petition is disposed of.

[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [Poonam V. Maharshi] Member emp 2