AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the point of delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is hereby condoned.
ADUMBRATED in brief, the facts of the revision petition are these: Dimple Yadav, the complainant in this case, was allotted plot No. 1410-P, Sector-6, Part-II, Dharuhera,vide letter dated 11.7.2003. She was required to deposit 15% of the tentative price of the plot, within 30 days. She was forced to give her consent to take possession of the plot, failing which, the allotment was to be cancelled. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioner could not deposit 15% of the tentative price of the plot, within the leeway granted in the said allotment letter. Consequently, allotment of the plot to her was cancelled on 30.11.2003. In the meantime, one Manoj Kumar, Chowkidar in HUDA, Bhivadi, tried to get the plot in question transferred by putting the forged signature of one Kartar Singh, Dealing Assistant. The matter was reported to the Police. A case was registered against Manoj Kumar, Chowkidar. The complainant took shelter of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, filed the instant complaint on 6.9.2006, wherein it was prayed that allotment of the said plot should be restored.
THE District Forum accepted the complaint, restored the allotment letter in favour of the complainant. Complainant was directed to pay the amount as per the allotment, within 30 days, along with penalty and interest, and it further directed the complainant to pay the remaining regular instalments. However, the State Commission reversed these findings.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly argued that this Commission must show sympathy towards the petitioner as she has suffered a lot of harassment and mental torture. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. This is an indisputable fact that no application for condonation of delay was moved before the District Forum. The cause of action arose on 11.7.2003, or at best, 11.8.2003. The complainant should have filed this complaint within two years. However, it was filed after more than three years, which is hopelessly barred by time. No reasons were given for the above said delay. The District Forum did not have the occasion to adjudicate this issue.
THE State Commission has supported its case by referring to Apex Court ''s authorities reported in SBI v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793=2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes, IV (2010) CPJ 27 (SC)=VII (2010) SLT 648=2011 CTJ 1 (SC) (CP). Both these authorities neatly dovetail with the facts of this case. The Revision Petition being without merit, is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.