Delhi District Court
Lalit Kumar And Ors vs E Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on 31 August, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, DISTRICT JUDGE
- 02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 220/2024
1. Lalit Kumar
R/o C-104, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301.
2. Pradeep Kumar
R/o A-1302, Exotica Elegance
Ahinsa Khand-2, Indirapuram
Ghaziabad, U.P
3. Himanshu Panchal
R/o C 2803, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301
4. Varun Singh Chandel
R/o E-2202, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301
5. Richa Gupta
W/o Pankaj Gupta
R/o D-601, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301
6. Reeta Razdan
w/o Kandarp Razdan
R/o 306, Corporate Tower,
85A Zamrudpur opposite
N Block GK-1, Delhi-110048
CS No.220/2024
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1/19
2
7. Sakleshwar Panda
R/o D-301, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301
8. Rajinder K. Hak
R/o B-10 Dreamland Apartment
Sector 1-A, Trikuta Nagar Jammu, J&K.
9. Vaibhav Gupta
R/o House No. 1486, Ahemad Bagh
Opposite Collectorate Court Saharanpur,
Uttar Pradesh
10. Jaya Choudhary
w/o Mukesh Choudhary
R/o B-1801, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301
11. Upendra Tiwari
R/o G-2503, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301
12. Rajiv Agarwal
R/o C-803, The Jewel of Noida,
Point No. G-14, Eco City, Sector 75
Noida, 201301 ...Plaintiffs
Versus
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Dasnac Annexe 1 ECE House,
28A Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
Delhi-110001. ...Defendant
CS No.220/2024
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2/19
3
Date of Institution : 26.04.2024
Arguments heard on : 24.08.2024
Date of Decision : 31.08.2024
Suit under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with
consequential reliefs and for compensation/damages, mandatory
injunction, declaration and for rendition of accounts.
JUDGMENT
1. This is the 5th round of litigation initiated by the plaintiffs/individual plaintiff against the defendant company.
1.1 Factual Matrix -
The plaintiffs are the purchasers/allottee of flats in the complex/building by the name of Jewel of India, Noida Phase-I developed by defendant company/builder. Canvasing their grievances firstly the petitioner no.1 herein had approached the U.P.RERA, Gautam Budh Nagar against the defendant company contending/alleging that the respondent therein had charged excessively towards the maintenance charges. The said petition was dismissed observing that in terms of the maintenance contract dated 27.04.2018 of which the petitioner [before the UPRERA] was the signatory, such a petition was not maintainable. It was also observed in the said order dated 17.12.2021 passed by UPRERA that the project developed by defendant no.1 company is fully operational.
1.2 Second round of litigation commenced when some of the CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 3/19 4
petitioners had preferred a consumer complaint before Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. In terms of judgment dated 14.06.2023 in case titled as "Lalit Kumar & Ors. v/s E Homes infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." the consumer complaint was dismissed. I Intend to quote paragraph no.5 which summarizes the relief sought before the said commission as well as para no. 18,19,20 & 21 of the said order. The same is mandated herein as the relief sought for and the operative part of the order have a bearing herein. Para no.5 is the relief sought for :
Aggrieved by the services provided by the Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainants have filed their Complaint in a representative capacity before this Commission with the following prayers:
Allow the present complaint; and;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 to pay the Complainant Rs.10,00,000/- each towards punitive damages for gross negligence, gross deficiency in services, misrepresentations and unfair trade practices along with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of filing of Complaint till realisation; and Direct the O.P. No. 1 to pay the Complainants Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation towards the mental harassment, mental pain and agony meted out to the Complainant by the O.P. No. 1 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint till realisation;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 to pay to the Complainants litigation costs and also such expenses as the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper towards travel expenses, incurred by the Complainants in their visits to the site, courier/postage charges etc. incurred in corresponding with OPs, telephone calls to his Counsels, along with CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4/19 5 such interest till the date of realisation as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper;
Direct the OPs not to charge or collect maintenance directly and that the same may be collected on fair, just and reasonable basis from the lawfully formed owner's association only and payable to the maintenance account;
Direct the Opposite Parties to provide convenient, adequate, safe, independent car parking space and to refund the amount charged towards car parking space along with interest @18% from the date when the payment was made;
Direct the Opposite Parties to refund wrongfully charged taxes including GST and VAT and other charges along with interest on that amount at the rate of 12% from the date of receipt of such wrongfully levied charges and taxes;
Award costs including legal costs to the Complainants; and Direct the O.P. No. 1 to produce audited and certified accounts of maintenance of the Project;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 to cooperate and assist in formation/functioning of lawful owner's association and to transfer the rights thereof to it;
Direct the Opposite Parties to refund wrongfully charged farmer's compensation along with the interest on that amount at the rate of 12% from the date of receipt of such wrongfully levied charges and taxes;
By way of decree, the O.P. No. 1 may be ordered to return/refund the sums paid by the Complainants towards the excess areas, consequent stamp duty and registration along with interest @18% p.a., to the Complainants, till realization, from the date of payment by the Complainants till actual recovery.
Appoint an independent Architect/Consultant/Court Commissioner to measure and ascertain on an actual basis w.r.t. the prayer(s)/relief(s) as made herein before;CS No.220/2024
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 5/19 6 Direct the O.P. No. 1 to refund interest on Advance Maintenance Charges and MMC excess charges with interest;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 to refund P.L.C. and Green Belt charges amounts with interest;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 to refund charges/fixed meter charges deducted from the meter and all incidental and consequential costs and charges thereto;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 to refund arbitrarily charged interest of delayed payment with GST;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 builder to execute supplemental sub-lease deed by removing unwarranted and one-sided clauses thereof;
Direct the O.P. No. 1 builder to produce original copies of all forms, undertakings and/or all other documents that were signed by the residents under pressure/ duress and copies of which were not provided to the residents/buyers and otherwise;
Pass such other/ further Order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Para 18 to 21 are as here under :
From the very nature of the reliefs claimed, i.e., the relief relating to production of audited and certified account of maintenance of the project; the right of the Complainants not to pay the maintenance charges; to appoint an independent Architect to measure and ascertain on actual basis with regard to the prayers and reliefs as made herein, direction to the O.P. No. 1 to return/refund the sums paid by the Complainants towards the excess areas, consequent stamp duty and registration along with interest @18% p.a., to the Complainants, till realization, from the date of payment by the Complainants till actual recovery, cannot be determined by this Commission since these require elaborate evidences and documents and the cross examinations of the witnesses keeping in view the number of Complainants. As also the direction sought CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 6/19 7 about the refund/return of the sums paid by the Complainants towards the excess areas and refund of the stamp duty and registration charges, is an issue which cannot be decided by way of summary procedure and needs elaborate evidences as it involves elaborate questions of law and fact. Moreover, the calculations need to be done individually for each and every Complainant since area of flat, registration charges, stamp duty paid has to be different. There is no averment made regarding area, rates etc. by any of the Complainants. Similarly, the Complainants have also sought the relief which is to direct the Opposite Parties to refund charges/fixed meter charges deducted from the meter and all incidental and consequential costs charges thereto of all the Complainants cannot be done by way of summary trial because calculation of the charges of individual Complainant and the reading taken from the meter need to be done individually and this certainly cannot be done by way of summary procedure. Although, the Complainants have sought the relief for execution of a supplementary sub lease deed by removing unwarranted and one-sided clauses in the lease deed executed by them which has been fully registered, it is not shown as to what were the one-sided clauses in the executed lease deed. It is settled proposition of law that consumer courts have no jurisdiction to delete or add any clauses in a registered sale/lease deed, registered before the Registrar. Another reliefs sought by the Complainants is to direct the Opposite Party No.1 Builder to produce original copies of all forms, undertakings and other documents that were signed by the residents under pressure/duress and copies of which were not provided to the residents, without disclosing the specific documents executed by the Complainants allegedly under duress. It is also not clear whether the reference is of one document which relates to all the Complainants or individual documents executed by individual Complainants. The nature of the document is also not disclosed which was allegedly taken under pressure/duress. The Complainants, it seems, want this Commission to do the fishing job by asking the Opposite Party to produce all the documents signed by the Complainants and then ask the Complainants to individually go through those documents and then point out the documents signed by them under duress. Such relief cannot be said to have commonality or common interest. This Commission certainly is not meant to do CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 7/19 8 that. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brigade Enterprises Limited (supra) has held that "the sameness of cause of action is not equal to sameness of interest." From the averments made by the Complainants, it cannot be discerned that they have sameness of interest.
It is a settled proposition of law that where two or more concurrent remedies are available to a party it has a right to choose a remedy suitable to him/her. Once such a choice is made, the party is not permitted to thereafter go for the other available remedy. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., CA No. 5785 of 2019", decided on 11.01.2021, the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein:
"20.9 An allottee may elect or opt for one out of the remedies provided by law for redressal of its injury or grievance. An election of remedies arises when two concurrent remedies are available, and the aggrieved party chooses to exercise one, in which event he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action."
It is not disputed that some Complainants before this Commission have already exercised their right of remedy before UP RERA for same reliefs. Therefore, once they have exercised their right of election, having failed there in getting the relief, they are precluded from filing the Complaint before this Commission for same cause of action. This renders the instant Complaint untenable as being representative of all the Complainants.
On the basis of the documents placed on record, it is apparent that many of the Complainants in this instant Complaint, namely Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Varun Singh Chandel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta have also filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi during the pendency of the proceedings before this Commission. The contentions of the Petition and the cause of action before the Civil Court are similar to the ones raised in this instant Complaint. The Complainants have failed to disclose this material fact before this Commission at any stage, which suggests a willful and deliberate attempt at misleading this Commission. It is CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 8/19 9 pertinent to refer to the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bhriguram De v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 8141, decided on 20.09.2018, the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein:
"15. According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim "Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi" defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].
16. The maxim that one who comes to Court must come with "clean hands" is based on conscience and good faith. The maxim is confined to misconduct in regard to, or at all events connected with, the matter in litigation.
"Clean hands" means a clean record with respect to the transaction with the defendant, and not with respect to any third person.
17. As authored by Ruma Pal, J. in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 [Coram: Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.J.], suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. The relevant portion is provided below:
"13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material from the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken........"CS No.220/2024
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 9/19
10
1.3 Worthwhile to note that one of the reason for dismissal of the
proceedings before the Hon'ble NCDRC was that number of petitioners had joined together and they did not had/possess "sameness of interest/ sameness of cause of action". In simpler words multiple cause of action were clubbed together/joined together in one petition.
1.4 This order was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 6243/2023. The SLP was dismissed. For the sake of convenience I am again reproducing the said order.
"1. Delay Condoned.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 14th June,2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Complaint No.864 of 2020.
3. On perusing the order impugned herein and the records placed before us and having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents, who appears on caveat, we are of the considered opinion that the NCDRC has given just and valid reasons for the conclusion arrived at. We see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order.
4. The appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merits."
1.5 The fourth round of litigation - as evident from the reading of the plaint is that some of the plaintiffs had filed suits before the Civil Court i.e. suit bearing no. 421 of 2022 titled as "Vaibhav Gupta & Ors. v/s E Homes Insfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Suit No. 754/2023 titled as "Lalit Kumar and Ors. v/s E Home Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." It is also stated that in para 51 of the plaint that those suits pertained to issues of CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 10/19 11 maintenance and electricity. The plaintiffs have also undertaken to withdraw the said suit/ not to press the same for the reason that a consolidated suit has been filed. Similarly one appeal was also filed before the UPRERA Appellate Tribunal which was also undertaken to be withdrawn.
1.6 Relevant to note herein that the proceedings/outcome whereof before the Civil Court have not been placed on record - what was the fate of those proceedings or whether any right was adjudicated upon or not/ whether leave/permission to withdraw was sought for or not. Thus, this suit has been filed after all those proceedings were either decided against the plaintiffs or the fact that the plaintiffs have chosen to efface themselves from the proceedings which they had initiated before the Civil Court. Necessarily the consequences ensue upon such abrupt withdrawal qua which I shall deliberate in the later part of the order.
2. Delving on the plaint for a moment, it is a suit which has been filed by 12 plaintiffs against E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The plaint, if I may use the word is humongous. It is canvasing multiple grievances under one petition. It is not confined to any limited aspect - apparently it appears that all grievances which the plaintiffs harbour against the defendant have been ventilated. Again I note that 12 people had joined together each having a different cause of action/distinct cause of action based on facts individual to them against the defendant company. It is not a representative suit. Simultaneously it is not a mere suit with regard to some services - electricity/maintenance charges which the plaintiffs were CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 11/19 12 individually paying. There are multiple reliefs sought for, still, despite bundle of cause of action being joined together only a cumulative Court fees of Rs. 100/- has been paid by the plaintiffs.
2.1 Still delving on the plaint which I could more decipher more during the course of the submissions as I had pointed out to Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs as to what exactly is their grievance(s). Ld. Counsel summed up the same by stating that the plaintiffs are aggrieved of the fact that rules of the Noida Authority mandate that the builder can only take/sell 1.354 times of the actual area as super carpet area whereas the defendant has charged much more for the flats sold to them. In simpler words grievance is with regard to over charging of the amount for the reason that for the actual area sold 1.354 times only can be charged for other facilities, which normally is sold as super carpet area.
2.2 Secondly their grievance was that the maintenance particularly the electricity and club charges which were clubbed together were exorbitant and the plaintiffs were coerced to pay the same notwithstanding the fact that the builder was enjoined to delegate the same to a RWA or a Welfare association of the residence which could have managed those amenities. In fact it was stated that the builder had also created obstacles in formation of such a society/association to take over such amenities.
2.3 Thirdly there is a dispute with regard to the farmers compensation which was ordered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 12/19 13 which had to be refunded/accounted for/given to the plaintiffs. Apart thereof there were some grievances with regard to PLC and green belt charges illegally charged by the defendant company for which refund was sought for.
3. The matter was received in this Court on 26.04.2024. It was adjourned for 28.05.2024 directing issuance of notice of the suit. On 22.08.2024 one application for early hearing was moved by the plaintiff side which was allowed and the matter was heard at length on 24.08.2024 whereafter orders were reserved on the application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC as well as application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [ in short 'The Act']. The aspect of existence of cause of action was also considered in the light of averments in the suit as well as orders passed in reference to the parties to the suit in previous/other proceedings.
4. In extenso arguments were addressed on the aspect as to the suit being devoid of cause of action; there being an existence of the arbitration clause, the fact that multifarious cause of action were mixed up in the suit which precludes a fair trial, Court fees being grossly deficient, jurisdiction vested with Courts at Noida and the plaintiffs choosing/doing forum hopping/hunting.
4.1 The matter was reserved for orders. Suffice to note herein that the defendant side had relied upon number of citations. Same are as here under :
CS No.220/2024E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 13/19
14
i. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v/s DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.
(2005) 7 SCC 791
ii. Anant Raj Industries ltd. v/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. 2003 (67) DRJ 566.
iii. Vidya Drolia & Ors. v/s Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1.
iv. Sanjay Mehra v/s Sharad Mehra & Ors.. 2023 SCC online Del 2305.
v. Namita Gupta v/s Suraj Holdings Ltd., 2024 SCC Online Del 143. vi. S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s Jagannath & Ors. (1994) SCC1 vii. Satish Khosla v/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. 1998 (44) DRJ (DB).
5. Cause of action in simpler terms is the bundle of facts which gives a right to a claim which is enforceable in the Court of Law. It can be stated to be the facts coupled with the legal right infracted which gives the plaintiff the right to approach the Court for vindication of his grievance. Order VII Rule 1 CPC in fact states the particulars to be contained in plaint. For the sake of convenience I am quoting Order VII Rule 1 CPC as here under :
Order VII Rule 1 CPC Particulars to be contained in plaint - The plaint shall contain the following particulars -
a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought;
b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;
c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained;
d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect;
e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;CS No.220/2024
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 14/19 15
f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction;
g) the relief which the plaintiff claims;
h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished; and
i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of court fees so far as the case admits"
5.1 Clause (e) states that the facts constituting the cause of action should be stated. Now this cause of action envisaged should be a subsisting or existing one in a sense, it must not have been either adjudicated upon or otherwise merged in any final orders passed by the Court. This cause of action or bundle of the facts, if adjudicated upon ceases to exist for the reason it is merged into the final pronouncement/adjudication. It can be said that the "cause of action"
stood adjudicated upon.
The plaintiffs have conveniently in one plaint articulated virtually every grievance which they had against the defendant company - whereas what was required to be pleaded is that they had a valid 'cause of action' in their favour which was subsisting or still in existence.
5.2 Insofar as the electricity/maintenance charges are concerned already there is an adjudication by UPRERA. The appeal against the same is also pending which the plaintiffs had undertaken to withdraw. Suffice to note herein that Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016 prohibits the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the authority or the appellate authority is competent to decide. Already there is an adjudication adverse to the plaintiffs or one of the CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 15/19 16 plaintiff. It is also not that the plaintiffs had directly approached the Civil Court. Consequently on the aspect of maintenance charges/agreement qua the said aspect there is an adjudication from the competent forum/authority adverse to the plaintiffs. The same cannot be nullified in the manner as sought to be done by the plaintiffs.
5.3 The consumer complaint preferred by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed till the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, the overlapping rights vested to them under the Consumer Protection Act also have been exhausted as they have lost till the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5.4 Insofar as the cause of action viz a viz any recovery of money is concerned on the point of misrepresentation, fraudulent sale or any other like reason it is relevant to note that as per the documents filed on record the properties individually purchased by the plaintiffs was through documents which culminated in sale deeds. Counting from the period of sale deed it is more than three years. The present suit was filed in the year 2024. The cause of action, if any for recovery of money is also barred by limitation. In fact the order passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC is with respect to a petition which was filed in the year 2020 and disposed of on 14.06.2023. The aspect of limitation is squarely applicable and the plaintiffs are agitating claims which are time barred before the Civil Court. It needs no reiteration that viz a viz those claims even the Court fees has not been affixed as only a paltry Court fees of Rs. 100/- has been paid alongwith the plaint.CS No.220/2024
E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 16/19
17
5.5 Lastly but not the least Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 speaks of the situation that when a suit is withdrawn from the Civil Court without seeking any liberty - the cause of action contended/ agitated in the plaint is also lost and such a plaintiff is precluded from filing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. The only exception is Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC i.e. permission/liberty is sought for bringing subsequent suit. In fact the plaintiffs have not specifically stated in para 51 of the plaint whether they have sought any liberty viz a viz those pending suits. Straightaway they have witdrawn from/their claims and filed the present suit and contended that they have filed a comprehensive/consolidated suit without even adhering to the statutory requirement of seeking liberty before filing the subsequent suit on the same cause of action. In fact the plaintiffs are guilty of forum hunting and/or not respecting the judicial verdicts adverse to them in their own cases. May be they have some grievances but it does not mean that they have/possess the cause of action to prefer the instant suit. They cannot just litigate as per their own convenience/ whims and fancies and continue the tirade by probably resorting to a copy-cut-paste method and seeking/combining all reliefs and grievances canvased before authorities/Courts earlier oblivious of the adjudications rendered against them.
6. Application U/s 8 of the Act was preferred by the defendant company. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same as well. Now the suit is without any cause of action - cause of action being barred by limitation particularly qua the money reliefs sought for coupled with CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 17/19 18 the fact that viz a viz the reliefs sought for qua the electricity and maintenance charges already there is an adjudication done by the competent authority i.e. the UPRERA, which adjudication is final. In addition thereto the claims before the Civil Court can also not be re- agitated unless and until there is a specific permission sought for by the plaintiffs from the Ld. Civil Court where the suits are/were pending. Same results in effacement/abandonment of the cause of action. As such the question of referring the present case or directing the plaintiffs to go for arbitration is also meaningless as there is no live/existing/subsisting dispute interse which warrants parties to be relegated to arbitration. In the given set of facts and circumstance, the application U/s 8 of the Act is also rendered nugatory
7. Consequent to the aforesaid discussion in my considered opinion the present suit is one which requires to be dismissed as having no 'cause of action'- it is only an attempt to over ride the adjudication rendered by the UPRERA/ Hon'ble NCDRC, which order had attained finality coupled with the fact that the cause of action is effaced/abandoned for not obtaining due liberty from the concerned Ld. Civil Court as well. I need not add more but also the fact which is apparent and has already been noticed by the Hon'ble NCDRC that there is no sameness of interest amongst the plaintiffs. In fact the suit of the plaintiff also suffers from the vice of multifarious cause of actions.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion the suit is only an abuse of process of law. It ought to be dismissed straightaway rather than rejecting CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 18/19 19 the plaint U/o VII Rule 11 CPC for the reason that the cause of action does not survive or exist. Such a suit should be dismissed at threshold and not let to continue to clog the docket of the Court. Such a litigation should be nipped in the bud Reliance is made on the judgment of Arivandandam v/s T.V.Satyapal & Anr. [1977 (4) SCC 467].
9. Suit is ordered to be dismissed. Considering the conduct of the plaintiffs that the suit is vexatious a cost of Rs. 3,000/- is also imposed upon each of the plaintiffs U/s 35-A of the CPC. Cost be paid within a period of four weeks.
Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to Record Room. Pronounced in open Court on 31.08.2024 (Sumit Dass) District Judge-02 & Waqf Board New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts New Delhi CS No.220/2024 E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 19/19