MUKESH Vs. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed: The appellant-complainant had filed Complaint No. 823 of 1999 on 29.9.1999 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short, the 'District Forum'). The memo of parties was as follows : 'Mukesh s/o Karam Chand through the Citizen Consumer Protection Forum (R), Chawla Complex, New Tagore Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana -Applicant/complainant versus Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana -Respondent' Reply to the complaint had been filed by the Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana. There was no objection in the written statement that proper/necessary parties had not been impleaded in the complaint. However, an application was moved by the complainant for the withdrawal of the complaint on the ground of technical defect that the opposite party had not been properly sued. Statement was made by the complainants Counsel on 1.2.2000 that 'I withdraw this complaint since the opposite party was not properly sued'. On the same day, i.e., 1.2.2000, the District Forum passed the following order : 'Appearance : Sh. S.D. Nagpal for the complainant. Present : Both the Members. File taken up today on the application. The representative of the complainant has made a statement that he withdraws the complaint since the opposite party was not properly sued. In view of the statement this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. The document be given to the complainant against receipt.'

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that neither any permission was sought from the District Forum to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action nor any such permission was granted. However, a fresh Complaint No. 1370 of 2003 was filed on 25.11.2003, in which Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana through Estate Officer had been impleaded as the respondent instead of Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana, who was the respondent in the earlier complaint. The complaint has been dismissed at the threshold by the District Forum primarily on two grounds, (i) that the earlier complaint having been dismissed as withdrawn, no fresh complaint lay on the same cause of action and (ii) since the earlier complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.2.2000 (wrongly mentioned by the District Forum as 27.1.2000), fresh Complaint No. 1370 of 2003 which was filed on 25.11.2003 was not maintainable i.e., more than 2 years after the first complaint was withdrawn. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.