BUILD INDIA Vs. SHOBHA SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. A/02/768 dtd. 19/12/2012 arising out of order dtd. 22/3/2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (in short, 'District Forum') in Complaint No. 360 of 1995.

(2.) This order will also dispose of revision petitions 2093, 2094 and 2095 of 2013 which arise from the same order of the State Commission. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from RP No. 2092 of 2013.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that one Wasudeo Harode and 6 others, are owners of plot nos. 16 to 38 at Kh. No 34/2 P.h. No. 11, Mouza Mankapur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. By way of an agreement dtd. 29/7/1989 they had agreed to hand over the land to petitioner no. 1 (Build India) to develop and construct an apartment scheme. Petitioner no. 2 was given a Power of Attorney on 25/7/1989 by all the land owners. The agreement authorized Petitioner no. 1 to execute agreements to sell flats and shops from the said apartment scheme. Petitioner no. 1 had agreed to sell a flat to the predecessor in interest of the respondents on 14/8/1991 as per which respondents were put in possession in 1994. A consumer complaint (No. 360 of 1995) was filed by the predecessor of the respondents on 7/8/1995 seeking removal of defects and deficiencies in service and to execute and register a sale deed in their favour. Land owners also filed a Special Civil Suit No 801/1993 before the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur (in short, 'Civil Court') praying for a decree of declaration that the Agreement dtd. 28/7/1989 and the Power of Attorney dtd. 25/7/1989 stood rescinded and the present petitioners had no right or authority under these agreements. The present petitioners also filed a suit RCS No. 1397/ 1993 which was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 848/1999 seeking a declaration that the acts of purported cancellation of the Agreement and Power of Attorney were illegal. These suits were decided by a common judgment dtd. 27/3/2000 and the suit by the landowners came to be partly decreed while that of the petitioners was dismissed on 27/3/2000. Accordingly the Power of Attorney stood revoked and the petitioners were restrained in perpetuity from transferring, alienating, creating any charge or interest of any third person or carrying out any construction on the suit property except building No. 1. The petitioners thereafter preferred First Appeal no.167 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay which stayed the order of the Civil Court on 26/7/2000. This matter is reported to be still pending. According to the petitioners, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed before it in view of this position of law. It is stated that during the pendency of Appeal No. 768 of 2002 before the State Commission, some respondents/ interveners filed Civil Appeal No. 6856/2008 before the High Court which was dismissed on 28/7/2009 on the ground that the suit for specific performance by the petitioners had already been dismissed. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Commission has misconstrued the order dtd. 27/3/2000 of the Civil Court and the High Court dtd. 24/7/2009 to conclude that "it cannot be accepted that the Power of Attorney is invalidated" and to partly allowthe appeal. The revision petition has prayed that the impugned order of the State Commission in FA No. A/02/768 dtd. 19/12/2012 and the order of the District Forum in CC 360 of 2000 be 'stayed'.