NEMI CHAND Vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Sh. Nemi Chand against the order of the District Forum, Sirohi dated 10.9.2003 was received by post. By a separate application the appellant had prayed for exemtion from personal appearance before the Commission and had also submitted, besides the memo of appeal, written arguments. We have perused all the material as available on our record.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that in order to manufacture ink and to instal a plant, therefor, at Sirohi he had obtained a loan of Rs.2,01,000/- on 26.7.1984 from the respondent, Rajasthan Finance Corporation (RFC), that a part of the factory area had been let out by him to a tenant and thereafter the industry installed by him had picked up momentum, that on 30.8.1991 the respondent had seized the industrial unit along with raw material lying therein and had auctioned the property in the year 1996 for Rs.75,000/-. According to the complainant the respondent had proceeded illegally against him to realize their outstanding against the appellant and, therefore, the appellant had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Sirohi. On the dismissal of Misc. Application No.39/1996 moved by the appellant before the Civil Court as per provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec.151, CPC on 23.4.1998 the complainant had approached the Forum in the year 2000 with the allegations that in selling the raw material of the appellant the respondent had rendered deficient services to him. The Forum however, found that the appellant had furnished no particulars of any sort of raw material which was stated to have been sold by the respondent along with the industrial unit. The Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

(3.) Since the dispute had already been taken to the Civil Court and the interim relief sought for by the appellant was also denied to him by the Civil Court on 23.4.1998, the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum. Moreover, there was no material before the Forum to have positively held that the respondent had also sold any raw material, belonging to the appellant, along with the industrial unit. We thus find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly. Appeal dismissed.