SRI KALPA MASTER BUILDERS Vs. C SREEKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS/opposite parties had undertaken construction of residential flats on the premises bearing Nos. 6. 3. 595/26, 6. 3. 595/27 and 6. 3. 595/28, Padamavathinagar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Respondent/complainant entered into an agreement on 2. 8. 1995 with the petitioners for purchase of a flat and part of sale consideration was also paid by him to them. Possession of flat was alleged to be handed over within 21 months of the execution of agreement. On failure of petitioners to handover possession of flat, the respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs against the petitioners. Despite service of notices, the petitioners did not put appearance before the District Forum. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent, the complaint was allowed ex parte with direction to the petitioners to deliver possession and execute the Sale-Deed in favour of respondent. Paid amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest @ 10% and compensation of Rs. 10,000 were to be deducted from the balance amount to be paid by the respondent. Against District Forum's order the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 28. 6. 2005. Review application filed thereafter, was also dismissed by order dated 12. 10. 2005 by the State Commission. It is these two orders which are being challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. Rangaranjuman, Sr. Adv. for petitioners is that the petitioners were under a bona fide belief that the respondent had withdrawn deal and this fact was not considered by the State Commission while dismissing review application. It is, thus, not in dispute that petitioners despite having been served with notices in complaint did not contest the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum passed the order dated 29. 1. 2002 based on the affidavit of respondent and the documents produced by way of evidence. In absence of any defence from the side of petitioners, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order of District Forum which has been affirmed by State Commission in appeal. We are not at all impressed by the explanation furnished by petitioners that they were under bona fide impression that respondent had withdrawn the deal. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.