G D MALHOTRA Vs. LIZU BARBARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint Case C-311 /91 was dismissed by this Commission by order dated 11.6.1993. In Appeal 438/93, the National Commission remanded the case by order dated 6.12.1995 "for the limited purpose of enabling the parties to adduce their evidence restricted to the question as to the nature of the works, if any, that were got done by the appellant herein in the house that was built for him by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the expenditure that was actually incurred on the said work". The parties were to be allowed to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence restricted to the aforesaid question and the State Commission was to submit finding on the basis of the said evidence to the National Commission. After the remand, the complainant filed affidavit dated 25.3.1996 along with a number of documents. Copy of the same was furnished to opposite party 3 who was contesting the case. On 23.7.1996 Mr. Babu Lal, opposite party-3 filed his evidence by way of affidavit as well as made an application seeking to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his aforesaid additional affidavit. That application is still pending.

(2.) The National Commission had directed payment of costs by the complainant to opposite party-3. There was controversy between the parties with regard to the payment/tender of the costs. In this connection application dated 25.3.1996 was made by the complainant. Reply was filed by opposite party-3 and rejoinder filed by the complainant. That controversy was, however, ultimately resolved by our order dated 7.6.1996 and Counsel for respondent No.3 accepted costs in terms of the order of the National Commission read with the said order of this Commission.

(3.) The present application dated 12.2.1998 has been made on the ground that the affidavit regarding additional evidence dated 25.3.1996 by the complainant is not confined to the issue for which the remand order has been passed but seeks to include other matters for which there is no permission and no remand. If the affidavit is allowed to stand on the record unchallenged, it would amount to permitting the complainant to fill in lacuna on other aspects of the case which was not the intention of the National Commission and which would be unfair to opposite party-3. It has, therefore, been prayed that the matters beyond the scope of the remand order be deleted from the additional affidavit and the same be suitably revised so as to be confined only to matters within the scope of the remand order. The application has been resisted. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties.