ARDEE INFRASTRUCTIRE PVT. LTD Vs. SURJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for impleading Chetan Kumar as opposite party in the revision petition. In the application it has been stated that Mrs. Surjit Kumar had become of 79 years old. In order to secure the property in dispute she executed transfer deed dated 09.10.2014 in respect of property in dispute in favour of Chetan Kumar, her son. In view of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC Chetan Kumar is liable to be impleaded as opposite party in the revision petition as such the application is allowed. Name of Chetan Kumar be added as respondent No.2 in the memo of party in the revision petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula, dated 07.01.2015, passed in First Appeal No. 807 of 2014 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, dated 10.06.2014, passed in Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2013), whereby the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to construct a metalled road on both sides of the plot of the complainant free from any encroachment and remove nearby encroachment of her plot in dispute within 60 days, in case of default, the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% p.a. from the date of each deposit with them till necessary development of the area and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and State Commission dismissed the appeal.