REEMA BAJAJ Vs. VIDYA KHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the complainant who is petitioner before us. On facts of the case District Forum was of the view that complicated questions of law and facts arose and that it was expedient that complainant be referred to seek her grievance in a Civil Court. State Commission on appeal filed by the complainant affirmed the order of the District Forum. It is against that order that complainant has come before us.

(2.) Complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of a building with fifth respondent who is owner of M/s. Raj Properties, respondent No. 4. This agreement was entered into on the representation of the respondent No. 5. Then there was a construction agreement entered into between first respondent and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter a tripartite agreement for purchase of the building to be constructed on the property was entered into. Contention of the complainant is that in spite of her paying earnest money and other amounts building was sold by respondents to third person. It is the contention of the respondents that it is the complainant who committed breach of agreement and in spite of various letters written to her she did not come forward to make the balance payment. Complainant had paid Rs. 2,50,000/- at the time of the agreement and was to pay a sum of Rs. 36,51,000/-. Thereafter, she paid Rs. 50,000/- by cheque dated 9.9.1996 and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- by cheque dated 11.9.1996.

(3.) Respondents say since there is breach of agreement earnest money stood confiscated and right of third parties had already been acquired in respect of the building in question. State Commission had already considered whole pros and cons of the case. Complaint certainly raises multiple disputes and we do not think it was a fit case to be tried by the District Forum. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.