Thakkar Vasudev Kanaiyalal vs President Consumer Dispute Redressal ... on 10 March, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Thakkar Vasudev Kanaiyalal vs President Consumer Dispute Redressal ... on 10 March, 2023

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

      C/MCA/1196/2022                              ORDER DATED: 10/03/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1196 of 2022
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8579 of 2022
==========================================================
               THAKKAR VASUDEV KANAIYALAL
                          Versus
  PRESIDENT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAIN
            SHRI NAKAHT PRAVEEN SYED & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                           Date : 10/03/2023

                    ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned party-in-person Mr.Thakkar Vasudev Kanaiyalal and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve.

2. The present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were filed with pleadings in Gujarati. The party-in-person appeared.

3. The allegation about commission of contempt was relatable to the observations and directions of learned Single Judge of this Court in order dated 10 th October, 2022 in Special Civil Application No.8579 of 2022.

3.1 The petitioner - party-in-person had in his Special Civil Application raised grievance that though the proceedings Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:32:25 IST 2023 C/MCA/1196/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2023 in the nature of contempt application and the execution application were pending before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Vadodara Bench, the petitioner was not being given hearing in the application.

3.2 Learned Single Judge in the said order dated 10th October, 2022 directed thus, "In view of the above, the Consumer Redressal Forum, Vadodara is directed to consider application for adjournment preferred by the petitioner by taking note of the fact that the petitioner's petition being Special Civil Application No.8579 of 2022 is pending before this Court and by way of the petition, the petitioner has prayed for a relief which if granted would directly effect proceedings before the Consumer Forum."

3.3 The Consumer Redressal Forum was required to consider the application of the pt - party-in-person for adjournment.

3.4 In response to the notice issued by this Court in the present petition, respondent No.1 filed her affidavit-in-reply inter alia stating that she held the order of the Court with highest regards and esteem, to further state that the proceedings before the Consumer Redressal Forum were listed on 15th October, 2022.

3.5 It was thereafter stated on oath in para-5 by the deponent, Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:32:25 IST 2023 C/MCA/1196/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2023 "5. ... that during the course of hearing on 15.10.2022 the application for adjournment did not reach to the answering deponent due to laches and administrative reasons and only the copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble court dated 10.10.2022 was received and was available with answering deponent."

3.6 It was further averred on oath that the applicant - party-in-person was not present on the said date, that is 15 th October, 2022 before the Forum presided over by the deponent. It was sought to be submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that adjournment application of the party-in-person pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge did not reach the Bench of the Forum on that day.

4. On the other hand, party-in-person insisted that the application was forwarded and was handed over to the Registrar. He produced copy of the e-mail to show that the application had reached. Learned party-in-person next referred to the decision of this Court in Bharatbhai Jivrajbhai v. Chaganbhai Samabhai being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1751 of 2011 decided by judgment dated 14th December, 2012.

4.1 On going through the decision relied on by learned party-in-person, it was in relation to the breach of order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Facts of the said case and the facts obtained in this case are materially different.

Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:32:25 IST 2023

C/MCA/1196/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2023

5. The Court does not find it necessary to go into the factual arena about request of the party-in-person reached the Forum or not.

5.1 In the facts and circumstances, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that respondent No.1 had any intention to commit any breach, much less willful in nature, of the directions of the learned Single Judge and not to grant time to party-in-person.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly assured the Court on behalf of the respondent that party-in- person shall be given adjournment as may be prayed for before the Forum.

7. In view of the fact situation emerging and Court having found that contempt has not been committed, proceedings are closed. Notice is discharged.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:32:25 IST 2023

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court