CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 28.9.1995 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 22.12.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioner Board was directed to issue allotment letter to the respondent under self -financing scheme and deliver possession of the flat. Petitioner Board was held to be entitled to charge interest on the balance amount under the original scheme from the date the allotment letter was issued. It was also held liable to pay interest at the rate it charges from the allottees on the deposited amount of Rs. 2,80,000 from the dates of perspective deposit to the respondent.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. In the year 1989, the petitioner/opposite party -Board had floated a self -financing scheme for category -I and category -ll flats at Manimajra. Respondent/complainant who had applied for allotment of a flat of category -l, was allotted flat bearing No. 5192/1. In terms of acceptance -cum -demand letter dated 7.2.1991, respondent was asked to deposit amounts of Rs. 60,000 within 30 days from the date of issue of that letter, Rs. 1.00 lakh towards first half -yearly instalment by 10.5.1991, Rs. 1.00 lakh towards 2nd half -yearly instalment by 10.11.1991 and Rs. 80,000 towards 3rd half -yearly instalment by 10.5.1992. Amount of Rs. 20,000 was deposited through a Bank Draft on 6.7.1989 with the Board by the respondent. It was alleged that before the due date of last instalment of Rs. 80,000, on 12.4.1992 the petitioner -Board enhanced the price of the flat from Rs. 4.00 lakh to Rs. 6.25 lakh and changed the payment schedule. Aggrieved by this revision, the respondent filed CWP No. 12950 of 1992. In a similar writ bearing CWP No. 10511 of 1992 by the order dated 2.6.1993 a Divisional Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the escalation in the price of flats holding it to be arbitrary. Said CWP No. 12950 of 1992 was disposed of in terms of the order dated 2.6.1993, by the order dated 19.11.1993. It was further alleged that thereafter the petitioner Board issued letter dated 18.3.1994 revising the price of the flat at Rs. 5,61,400. Aggrieved by this revision, the respondent again filed CWP No. 5179 of 1994 against Chandigarh Administration and others. This writ was decided by the High Court along with CWP No. 1042 of 1994 vide order dated 13.7.1995. LPA against the order passed in CWP No. 1042 of 1994 by Chandigarh Administration was allowed by the High Court by the order dated 15.3.1996. Respondent alleged that the price of the flat allotted to him was not re -determined in the light of the said judgment dated 13.7.1995 by the Board. He, therefore, filed complaint seeking possession of the allotted plot and claiming other reliefs which was contested by the petitioner Board. By filing written version, it was alleged that the respondent had paid total sum of Rs. 2,80,000. He did not make payment of the 3rd instalment of Rs. 80,000. Order dated 13.7.1995 passed in CWP No. 1042 of 1994 was set aside in LPA No. 792 of 1995 by the High Court on 15.3.1996. Respondent did not approach the petitioner within 30 days in compliance with the order dated 15.3.1996 and there was no deficiency on its part and the complaint was, thus, liable to be dismissed.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar for the petitioner Board was two -fold: (i) Order passed in LPA No. 792 of 1995 setting aside the judgment dated 13.7.1995 in CWP No. 1042 of 1994 was judgment in rem and binding on the respondent and as the respondent did not approach the Board within 30 days of the passing of that order, the Board was not liable to hand over possession of the flat to the respondent; and (ii) complaint filed on 17.3.2003 by the respondent was barred by limitation. Coming to first limb of submission, it may be stated that ordinarily a judgment binds only the parties to it. Judgment in rem, a phrase, denotes certain judgments which are conclusive not only against the parties to them but also against all the world. Orders passed by a competent Court exercising jurisdiction in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency referred to in Section 41 of the Evidence Act are only the judgments in rem. Copy of the judgment dated 13.7.1995 at pages 26 to 58 on the paper book would show that it was passed by a Single Judge in CWP No. 1042 of 1994 and other writ petitions including No. 5179 of 1994 filed by the respondent. In LPA No. 792 of 1995 filed against the order dated 13.7.1995 in CWP No. 1042 of 1994 the respondent was not a party. Judgment dated 15.3.1996 being not falling in the category of the judgments covered by said Section 41 of the Evidence Act, was not a judgment in rem but was judgment in personam. Submission advanced on behalf of petitioner Board in regard to judgment dated 15.3.1996 being in rem is, thus, repelled being devoid of any merit. Since the respondent was not a party to the said LPA nor had it been filed against the judgment passed in CWP No. 5179 of 1994 the respondent will be governed only by the Single Judge's order dated 13.7.1995. Operative portion of this order which is material, reads thus: