BATHINDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BATHINDA Vs. SHIVANI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dtd. 25/9/2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 313 of 2018.

(2.) Ms. Anavntia Shanker, learned proxy counsel appears for the appellant (the 'development authority.'). Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, learned counsel appears for the respondent (the 'complainant'). Heard. Perused the record.

(3.) Learned proxy counsel for the development authority requests for an adjournment. Learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposes. He submits that on 9/3/2022 the application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal was allowed by a co-ordinate bench as it was not opposed by the complainant ('This application seeking condonation of delay is allowed as not opposed by the Respondent'.). The complainant is craving for an early decision on merits. However the development authority is unduly delaying the case. Earlier, on 8/8/2022, 14/9/2022, 9/11/2022, 23/1/2023, 13/3/2023 and 10/4/2023 adjournment was granted at the behest of the development authority. The complainant has never asked for adjournment and has always been represented on each date. The complainant has a favourable Order from the State Commission but the development authority is unjustifiably procrastinating its appeal and is in effect unduly attempting to negate the State Commission's award. Submission is that any more delay in deciding the appeal will cause further prejudice to the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that further to the Order dtd. 9/3/2022 both sides have already filed their respective briefs of written arguments.