LAND TWISTERS Vs. RAVI CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is present in person with his Counsel. Vakalatnama is filed in court and taken on record.

(2.) During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Complainant has already executed the Sale Deed with the actual owner Satwinder Singh even before filing of the Complaint. He has further submitted that the Complainant had filed a false Complaint and intentionally had not impleaded Satwinder Singh as a party to the Complaint. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has requested that in order to prove the correct facts on record, it is essential that the impugned order, which is ex-parte order, be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for fresh trial.

(3.) At this stage, the Complainant after going through the record and hearing the submissions, submits that the impugned order may be set aside and his Complaint may be dismissed as withdrawn because he does not want to pursue the Complaint as he has already received the possession of the subject flat after making full payment and nothing is due towards the present Appellant, Land Twisters.