TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. DEVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in R.P. No.64 of 2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.10.2011 vide which the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali rejected the petitioners' request for impleading one Prabhjot Singh S/o Inder Singh as opposite party in the pending consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Devinder Singh, before the District Forum. Thus vide its impugned order, the State Commission also rejected the request for impleading the said Prabhjot Singh as additional opposite party in the consumer complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of this case which are relevant for its disposal are that plot No.1185 measuring 250 sq.yds. in sectors 117 -119, Mohali was purchased by one Chandrika Parsad on 17.6.2005 from the petitioners/opposite parties by paying Rs.3 lakhs. This plot was thereafter re -sold firstly to one Jatinder Singh and thereafter to aforesaid Prabhjot Singh from whom it was repurchased by the respondent/complainant. Before purchasing the plot from Prabhjot Singh, the complainant/respondent approached the petitioners who gave him statement of accounts dated 14.7.2010 in which it was shown that a balance amount of Rs.1,68,750/ - was due in respect of the plot in question. This amount was deposited by the complainant with the OP Builders on 15.7.2010 for which he was issued a receipt. Thereafter on receipt of transfer fee of Rs.25,000/ - vide receipt dated 15.7.2010, the petitioners/OP Builders transferred the plot in question in favour of the complainant vide transfer document dated 15.10.2010. Another due amount of Rs.1,62,500/ - was demanded by the petitioners from the complainant vide their letter dated 3.3.2011 which the complainant could not pay due to financial difficulty and hence sought time for depositing it with interest. For non -payment of this amount, it is alleged that the OPs/petitioners vide their letter dated 20.6.2011 cancelled the allotment in favour of the complainant. The complainant, therefore, knocked the door of the District Forum by filing the consumer complaint in question seeking directions to the OPs/petitioners inter alia to withdraw the cancellation letter dated 20.6.2011.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Joydip Bhattacharya, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the plot in question came to be transferred in the name of the complainant/respondent based on a wrong entry in the statement of accounts in favour of the said Prabhjot Singh. He submitted that since the complainant, while filing the complaint before the District Forum, has neither impleaded the said Prabhjot Singh as party/respondent nor produced any receipt against the instalment amount of Rs.6,87,500/ -, it became necessary for the petitioners to make a request before the District Forum for making Prabhjot Singh as party/respondent for proper and effective adjudication of the case. Citing the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4900 of 2010 decided on 6.7.2010), learned counsel submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the well settled principle of law that the court may implead a party in a lis on its impleadment application moved by either of the parties. He further submitted that the State Commission also failed to consider the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is a substantive law wherein either party in the proceedings has the right to move an application for impleadment of a necessary party and while dismissing the revision petition the State Commission heavily relied on the principle of dominus litis while returning its finding which is in flagrant disregard to the specific provisions of Code of Civil Procedures. Keeping these aspects in view, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence liable to be set aside. He summed up by saying that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant/respondent if Prabhjot Singh is also impleaded as an opposite party in the complaint. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum is perfectly in order and has been passed after duly considering the provisions of law relied by learned counsel for the petitioners.