Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2024) 07 RERA CK 2847

Lt. Col. Sunita Thakur vs M/s Vaikunth Multistate Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Anr.

Real Estate Regulatory Authority National Capital Territory Of Delhi · Decided on 9 July 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devesh Singh, Member · Ajay Kumar Kuhar, Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Com/37/06/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

Adv. D.K. Gupta appeared along with Complainant in person.

2.

Adv. Kajal Dewan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

3.

The Respondents had moved an application for waiving the cost imposed on 06.02.2024 for not filing the reply.

4.

We have heard the arguments of both the Counsels on the application.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Respondents submitted that the previous Counsel for the Respondents did not file the reply as per direction. In the meantime the Respondents had engaged new Counsel and due to this the reply could not be filed on time.

6.

Ld. Counsel for Applicant / Respondents argued that the Respondents cannot be penalised on account of fault of the previous counsel. She referred to the judgement in ‘Rafeek Vs. Munshilal & othrs’ in support of her contention.

7.

The Respondents were duly served with the notice as well as the copy of the complaint and their Counsel marked appearance on 30.11.2023. The Respondents were to file reply by 15.01.2024 which was not filed. On 06.02.2024 the Counsel for the Respondents again sought further time to file the reply which was duly allowed however, subject to cost Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Complainant.

8.

The order-sheets clearly show that the Ld. Counsel Ms. Kajal Dewan had appeared on 30.11.2023 who was supplied the copy of the complaint. On 06.02.2024 Adv. Rajeev Kumar had appeared Adv. Kajal Dewan again appeared on 09.04.2024 after filing the reply on 08.04.2024.

9.

It is true that Respondents cannot be penalised for want of action by the Counsel but at the same time the Complainant also cannot be made to suffer delay in the disposal of the proceedings on account of fault on the part of the Respondents.

10.

The judgment referred by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Respondents is distinguishable on facts of the case.

11.

Considering the facts of the case we do not see any ground for waiver of the cost. The application is dismissed accordingly.

12.

We have heard the Counsels of the parties in the main case. Case is reserved for order on 14.08.2024 at 11:30 am.