Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sanjay Dattatray Mangave Pro. Prasad ... vs Usha Pahilaj Soutani on 14 March, 2019

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
               MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

                        Revision Petition No.RP/18/118

Mr.Sanjay Dattatray Mangave
Prasad Construction
Through proprietor
R/o.More Mane Nagar, Kalamba
Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur             .....Revision petitioner
                   Versus
Mrs.Usha Pahilaj Soutani
R/o.Flat no.8, Third floor
Bhavani Apartment,
Behind Telephone Exchange,                     .........Respondent
Tarabai Park, Kolhapur

BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
        Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
                                ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President

Heard Learned advocate Mr.A.A.Bhumkar for revision petitioner. Affidavit of Mr.Sanjay Dattatray Mangave is taken on record. No one is present for respondent though vakalatnama of one Mr.Naveen Chomal has been filed on behalf of respondent. Vakalatnama appears as if it is filed by the appellant. In fact, Mr.Naveen Chomal-Advocate is appearing for respondent and not appellant. Mis-description of party and non application of mind in the vakalatnama filed is apparent. Be that as it may. Since respondent is repeatedly remaining absent and as we have expressed our opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, we heard learned advocate for revision petitioner on merits of the impugned order.

It does appears that there was an application filed by the applicant/ complainant in order to test the affidavit filed on behalf of opponent by means of cross examination, as according to complainant factually wrong statement was made in the affidavit. However, Learned District Forum decided to allow only interrogatories on the ground that no valuable time would be lost by the Forum below.

In our view, when it is specifically alleged that deliberately a false affidavit has been filed and deponent has to be tested by means of cross examination, in respect of deliberate false statement made in the affidavit, Learned District Forum could have in the larger interest of justice, permitted cross examination after considering the interrogatories as may be directed. With this observation, we direct the Learned District Forum to permit cross examination of the deponent, if any deliberate false statement appears to have been made in the affidavit. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced on 14th March, 2019.

[Justice A.P.Bhangale] PRESIDENT [Dr.S.K.Kakade] MEMBER Ms