National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pramod K. Ghate vs M/S. Ankita Developer & 2 Ors. on 5 March, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 993 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 184/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. PRAMOD K. GHATE O.T. SECTION, NEAR MARATHI SCHOOL NO. 14, JAGRUTI COLONY,ULHASNAGAR, DISTRICT-THANE MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. ANKITA DEVELOPER & 2 ORS. HAVING OFFICE AT SREE SAIRAM NAGAR, SURVERY NO. 9, HISSA NO. 3, NEAR KAMLAKAR NAGAR, AMBERNATH, DISTRICT-THANE MAHARASHTRA 2. SHANKAR M. RUPCHANDANI THE PARTNERS OF M/S. ANKITA DEVELOPERS, HAVING OFFICE AT SREE SAIRAM NAGAR, SURVERY NO. 9, HISSA NO. 3, NEAR KAMLAKAR NAGAR, AMBERNATH, DISTRICT-THANE MAHARASHTRA 3. NEETU D. WADHWA THE PARTNERS OF M/S. ANKITA DEVELOPERS, HAVING OFFICE AT SREE SAIRAM NAGAR, SURVERY NO. 9, HISSA NO. 3, NEAR KAMLAKAR NAGAR, AMBERNATH, DISTRICT-THANE MAHARAHSTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagaraj V. Hoskeri, Advocate
Mr. Nihant Parikar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Poonam Makhijani, Advocate
Ms. Preshita Ohal, Advocate
Dated : 05 Mar 2019 ORDER
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 12.12.2017, whereby the said Commission allowed an application filed by the appellant for producing additional documentary evidence and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh after considering the said additional documents.
2. The documents which the State Commission took on record were intended to prove that the respondent had already entered into an agreement on 10.01.2008 with one Mr. Anil Dange for sale of the flat, subject matter of the consumer complaint and had also handed over the possession of the said flat to him. The complainant, who is present in the Court, admits that the flat in question is no more in possession of the respondent and has already been delivered to Mr. Anil Dange.
3. Therefore, in view of the said admission, the additional documents allowed by the State Commission are no more required. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the District Forum dated 28.01.2014 on its merit. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.04.2019. The State Commission shall decide the appeal preferred by the appellant on its time within three months of the parties appearing before it.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER