Hemangi Harishchandra Gund vs Shrinivas Trimbak Joshi

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1553/2005 Smt. Hemangi Harishchandra Gund and Anr. Vs. Shri Shrinivas Trimbak Joshi and Anr. During pendency of revision petition, petitioner filed I.A. No. 1880 of 2014 for impleading tenant as a party.

PETITIONER filed I.A. No. 1880 of 2014 and submitted that tenant of the respondent who is occupying flat in dispute i.e. Flat No. 4 on the second floor of the Society be impleaded as party in the proceedings as complainant himself admitted this fact in the complaint and maintenance charges are also paid by him. Respondent filed reply and denied all allegations and prayed for dismissal of application.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. In this matter complaint filed by complainant/respondent was allowed and learned State Commission while partly accepting appeal modified order and reduced rate of interest from 18% to 12%. As OP did not comply with the order of District Forum, complainant filed application under Section 27 of the C.P. Act and learned District Forum while allowing application imposed 6 months imprisonment on OP. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that tenant is necessary party in this revision petition, hence, he may be impleaded as a party whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that executing court cannot go beyond decree and so called tenant is neither necessary nor proper party, hence, application be dismissed.

ADMITTEDLY , so called tenant was not a party before District Forum in the original complaint or before State Commission in appeal. No such application was filed before District forum in complaint or execution proceedings or before State Commission in appeal filed by petitioner. Learned State Commission observed that complainant has denied to have taken possession on flat at the instance of builder and rightly observed that executing court cannot go beyond the original award. Hon''ble Apex Court in Ramesh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1996 AIR(SC) 3066 held that executing court cannot go behind decree and implead third parties to it. As present proceedings are only execution proceedings, this so called tenant cannot be impleaded as party in this proceedings. Parties are free to take appropriate action against the so called tenant but he cannot be impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings and in such circumstances, I.A. No. 1880 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , I.A. No. 1880 of 2014 filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Adjourned to 23.2.2015 for final hearing of I.A. No. 5924 of 2013.