Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravi Prakash Sharma vs M/S Vardhman Properties Limited on 8 December, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 973/2023
RAVI PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
M/S VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 08.12.2023 CM APPLs. 63728-29/2023 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of.
RFA 973/2023 & CM APPL. 63730/2023 (condonation of delay)
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant assails a judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023, by which the suit for recovery filed by him was dismissed by the learned Trial Court inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
2. Mr. O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in not granting to the appellant, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act"), for the period during which a complaint filed by the appellant was pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehrauli.
RFA 973/2023 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2023 at 01:13:23
3. It appears prima facie from the complaint filed by the appellant before the learned Trial Court, that the appellant had sought payment of the amount claimed in the suit from the respondent by a legal notice dated 07.03.2008. He thereafter filed proceedings before the Consumer Forum on 10.06.2010, which were dismissed holding that the appellant was not a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant thereafter approached the District Legal Services Authority ["DLSA"] for pre-litigation mediation on 18.02.2020. The appellant states that he received the Non-Starter report dated 19.11.2020 issued by the DLSA only on 30.10.2021, and the suit was filed on 05.04.2022.
4. The aforementioned facts prima facie show that, even if the appellant was granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Act, his suit would have been out of time. His cause of action evidently arose prior to 07.03.2008, when he issued a legal notice to the respondent. The limitation period in respect of the appellant's suit is admittedly three years. The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed on 10.06.2010, after the lapse of two years, three months and three days. This left him with a period of eight months and twenty eight days to file the suit. The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came to a close on 08.05.2018, but the appellant invoked pre-litigation mediation only on 18.02.2020 i.e. after a lapse of more than one year and nine months.
5. Mr. Gupta seeks some time to consider this aspect and address the Court further. He is directed to file a detailed list of dates within one week from today, to support his contention of limitation, even on the RFA 973/2023 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2023 at 01:13:23 basis that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act.
6. List on 05.01.2024.
7. In the meanwhile, the Registry is also directed to summon the Trial Court record in electronic form.
PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 8, 2023 "Bhupi"/ RFA 973/2023 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2023 at 01:13:24