Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Vatika Limited vs Lachha Ram Chaudhary on 19 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11141 OF 2011
M/S. VATIKA LIMITED & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHRI LACHHA RAM CHAUDHARY RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent and perused the appeal papers.
Though the arguments are addressed vehemently for a great length of time and the merits of the matter was adverted to, at the outset we note that the preliminary aspect relating to the computation of limitation period for filing a complaint be- fore the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) as in the instant case is the preliminary point which is required to be taken note in view of the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant that the claim before the NCDRC was barred by time.
In that view, for the present, we see no reason to advert to the merits of the claim but at the outset take note of the manner in which the cause of action was indicated in the complaint and the limitation that was computed. In that regard, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2023.04.21 18:00:20 IST Reason: 1 C.A. NO.11141/2011 we have adverted to the complaint which is available at Annexure A-12. Paragraph 11 of the complaint, reads as under :
“11.That the development of the plot was complete with the plantation of eucalyptus trees in February, 1988, as per letter dated 3rd February 1988. Thus, as per “maturity period” of the eucalyptus trees defined in Clause 6(ii) of the above-referred agreement, the eucalyptus trees matured by February 1995. However, M/s Vatika Plantation Pvt. Ltd. has as yet neither given to the complainant the usufruct of eucalyptus trees as per above referred agreement nor the cost of the eucalyptus trees. Instead, M/s Vatika Plantation Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s Vatika Townships Pvt. Ltd. the Opp. Party No.1) did not hand over the possession of the farm house C-71 and shifted the com- plainant in October 1996 to adjoining farm house no. C-70, therefore given a period, the complainant ought to have been given the cost of the trees immediately instead of waiting till the year 2003. Thus the cause of action being continuous and still running the complaint is within time as prescribed under Sec. 24-A of the said Act.” The prayer in the complaint reads as under:
“A total sum of Rs. 41,68,372/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Two Only) as detailed below:-
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) is claimed as the cost of 800 eucalyptus trees @ 2500/- per tree as on February 1995 and Rs. 21,68,372/- (Rupees Twenty One lacs Sixty Eight Thousands Three Hundred Seventy Two Only) is claimed as interest on the principal from February 1995 to July 1999. The interest of justice, equity and fair play.” From a perusal of the same it indicates that the cause of action as pleaded by the respondent who was the complainant before the NCDRC was February, 1995. Hence, the complaint was 2 C.A. NO.11141/2011 required to be filed within two years as provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. From the very complaint, it is noted that it was filed only on 24.08.1999. Considering that the complaint filed was beyond time, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed before the NCDRC which is dated 03.07.2000(Annexure-13).
In that background, a perusal of the order impugned passed by the NCDRC would indicate that neither in the order impugned nor from the record of the proceedings earlier to the same it is indicated that the application for condonation of delay was considered, order was passed and thereafter the matter was considered on its merits.
On the other hand, a perusal of the record of proceedings (Annexure-14) would indicate when the complaint was taken up on 29.11.2000, the complaint has been admitted and thereafter no-
tice issued to the opposite party which only indicates that prior to admitting the petition, the delay was not condoned and in any event the delay could have been condoned only after providing opportunity to the appellant herein, who was the respondent in the complaint, before the application was considered. In addition, what is also noted from the order impugned is the finding recorded in the order impugned which reads as under:
“On account of exchange of the farmland, the plantation of Eucalyptus trees thereon was required to be completed by 3 C.A. NO.11141/2011 the Ops within 7 years and as such the complaint, which was filed in the year 2000, is within the period of limitation and the objection raised by the OPs that the complaint is beyond the period of limitation is without any merit.” From the above finding, it appears that the NCDRC in fact, had computed the limitation on a wrong basis rather than noting which was indicated in the complaint. Hence, the conclusion that there was no delay in filing the complaint is erroneous. The said finding is not sustainable inasmuch as the pleadings in the complaint as also the fact that an application for condo- nation of delay was filed, as noted above would indicate that the NCDRC at the outset was required to consider the aspect of delay and thereafter, only if it was convinced that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay, the merits of the matter was required to be considered.
Having taken note of this aspect and since it was the discretion which vested with the NCDRC at the first instance to take note as to whether the cause shown is sufficient and delay was liable to be condoned, the only course that would be open to this Court at this juncture is to set aside the impugned order and restore the complaint alongwith the application for condonation of delay to the NCDRC whereupon the NCDRC shall provide opportunity to both the parties, at the outset consider the application seeking condonation of delay and thereafter arrive at its conclusion only if it arrives at the 4 C.A. NO.11141/2011 decision that the cause shown for condonation of the delay is sufficient and on condoning the same, the matter is required to be adverted on merits.
To enable the same, we set aside the order dated 11.07.2011 and restore the Original Petition No. 176 of 2000 alongwith the application for condonation of delay to the file of the NCDRC. Considering that both the parties are represented in the proceedings, they shall appear before the NCDRC on 17.05.2023 as the first date for appearance before the NCDRC. The NCDRC may thereafter regulate its proceedings and arrive at the conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left open to be urged be- fore the NCDRC.
The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.
……………………………………………………………J. [A.S. BOPANNA] ……………………….……………………………………….J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 19, 2023 5 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 11141/2011 M/S VATIKA LIMITED & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS LACHHA RAM CHAUDHARY Respondent(s)
Date : 19-04-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Randhir Jain, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjai Jain, AOR Ms. Omita Unnarkar, Adv.
Mr. Bhoop Singh, Adv.
Mr. Naveen Rai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Zehra Khan, Adv.
Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR
Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Vasudha Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of signed order. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6