PRAKASH Vs. SHRIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.02.2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 1776/1999, "Shrikand Ramesh Pande versus Shri Prakash Govindrao Mandore " vide which, while allowing appeal, order passed by District Forum, Aurangabad dated 15.5.2012 was set aside and the case was remanded to the District Forum with direction to hear the complaint afresh by giving proper opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that as per the complainant Shrikant Ramesh Pande, he and his wife were intending to purchase a shop, so that the wife of the complainant could start a boutique and earn her livelihood. As per the complainant, he decided to purchase shop No. CR -7, measuring 201 sq. ft. on the first floor in Deep Apartments at Bheempura, Aurangabad, being developed by the petitioner/OP. The complainant had negotiations with the petitioner and he decided to buy the said shop at a cost of Rs.4,42,000/ - and also got executed the agreement to sell on 12.12.2008 with the petitioner and paid him an amount of Rs.2,42,200/ - in cash. The said agreement mentions boundaries of the said shop and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.2 lakh shall be paid at the time of delivery of possession. It is also stated that the petitioner agreed to deliver the possession within a period of 6 months from the agreement. However, the petitioner failed to handover the possession of the shop and consequently the sale deed was not executed. The complainant, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner/OP. The District Forum dismissed the complaint saying that the said agreement was not registered and since the other party had denied the said agreement, the issue could be decided by the Civil Court only and hence, the District Forum could not entertain the matter. An appeal was filed by the OP before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and remanded the case to District Forum with direction to hear the complaint afresh by giving opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidence. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/OP argued that no such agreement had been executed between the parties and the complainant 's brother had indeed fabricated the agreement. He stated that the brother of the complainant/respondent is an Advocate, namely, Sh. S.R. Pande, who was engaged by the petitioner in some matter relating to District Court, Revenue Authority etc. and he paid him Rs.2.5 lakh as professional fee. However, the said Advocate demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakh as professional fee and hence, the petitioner/OP had dispute with the Advocate. The Advocate misused the signatures made by the petitioner on some blank papers and prepared the agreement in question. The petitioner has taken this plea in their reply to the complaint before the District Forum. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the grounds of the present revision petition saying that the following issues arise in the present case: -