AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Initially, 28 complaints were filed before the District Forum. The said complaints were filed in August, 1993. The complainants made the following prayers:- "1. To issue occupancy certificate and execute sale-deed of the tenement No. 36-C, after completing the development work/issue of necessary original sanction plan.
To complete the development of work of road (internal & approach) complete with levelling, provide street lights, Corporation water or to dig sufficient wells and to repair to complete the minimum requirement of water or to pay Rs.50,000/-.
To pay Rs.35,000/- for cost of additional or extra item, not provided even after taking amount.
To pay Rs.25,000/- for cost of defects in super structure.
To pay Rs.10,000/- for failure to provide amenities as per general specifications.
To pay Rs. ______ for mental agony and harassment caused from the very beginning.
To pay cost of litigation amount to Rs.5,000/-.
Grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances by this Hon''ble Commission".
The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and granted the following reliefs, vide order dated 22.11.1994:- "For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order:- The OPs are hereby directed to Tar the internal roads in the layout within 6 months of this order.
ii)The complainants and the OPs are directed to appoint their own Engineers within 2 months of this order. These Engineers appointed by the parties shall find out the defects, if any, in the super structure of the tenement allotted to these complainants and suggest method to remove defects and the possible costs for removing those defects. After the receipt of the report of these Engineers, the OPs shall remove that defects in the super structure within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of that report. If the OPs failed to remove those defects, the complainants can approach this Forum for further monetary claim in that respect.
iii) The OPs are directed to provide one power point to the tenement of the complainants as per agreement, to provide washing place and pipe cock for washing place to provide W.C. flushing with automatic mirende value to the tenements of these complainants within two months of this order. If the OPs failed to provide these amenities within the time given the complainants shall be entitled to recover Rs. 8,100/- each from the OPs as the costs of these amenities.
iv) The OPs are directed to pay Rs. 300/- to each of the complainants as costs of their respective complaints and bear their own costs".
It is note-worthy that the point of execution of sale deed did not figure in the said judgment
The complainants filed another complaint dated 05.03.1998, against the OPs praying for direction to OPs to execute the sale deeds in respect of their apartments in their favour. The said complaint was remanded by this Commission to the Forum below vide order dated 16.07.2008 with a direction to the applicants to file separate complaints for the aforesaid relief and the limitation was saved for filing the said complaints. Thereafter, the complainants filed fresh complaints before the District Forum, on 09.03.2009. Those complaints were dismissed by the Forum by a common order on 12.08.2010 holding that those complaints were barred by principles of res judicata in view of the decision dated 22.11.1994 given in the previous complaint, filed by the complainants. The certified copy of common order was issued to the complainants on 27.08.2014.
The above said order, dated 12.08.2010 was called into question by the complainants by filing appeals before the State Commission on 22.09.2010. The State Commission dismissed the said appeals on 16.12.2013 holding that the complaints subsequently filed by the complainants are barred by the principles of res judicata . The State Commission further observed that since the order dated 22.11.1994 was not assailed to the extent that no order for executing the sale deed was filed, therefore, this new plea cannot be decided in the second appeal.
It appears that after realizing their mistake, the complainants filed fresh appeals against the order dated 22.11.1994 passed by the earlier order by the fora below. There was huge delay of 20 years 30 days, in preferring the appeal against the order dated 22.11.1994. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 14 of the Limitation Act and placed reliance on the authorities reported in:- 1. Ramdutt Ramkissen Das Vs. E.D. Sassoon & Co. & Anr. 1929 Privy Council 103
Sarojendra Kumar Dutta Vs. Puranchandra Sinha, AIR (36) 1949, Calcutta 24
Firm Bansidhar Baldeo Pershad & Anr. Firm Alopi Pershad & Sons Ltd., AIR 1963 Pb 556
Nemichand Chhogala & Ors. Vs. Rekhchand Akhachand & Anr., AIR 1964 MP, 258 (Indore Branch)
Tirumareddi Rajarao & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Visakhapatnam & Ors., AIR 1965, AP 388
Narain Das Vs. Banarasi Lal & Ors., AIR 1970 Patna 50
India Electric Works Ltd., Vs. James Mantosh & Anr., AIR 1971 SC 2313
Salik Ram Adya Prasad Vs. Ram Lakhan & Ors. AIR 1973 All 107
Suraj Nath Prosad Kedarnath Vs. Union of India, AIR 1975 Cal. 203
Roshanlal Nuthiala & Ors. Vs. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberai, AIR 1975 SC 824
Dy. Collector, Northern Sub-Division, Panji Vs. Comunidade of Bambolim, AIR 1996 SC 148
Wamanrao Keshavrao Deshmuk & Ors. Vs. Dinkarrao Bhausaheb Deshmukh & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 322
P. Sarathy Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2023
Loknath Biswal Vs. Union of India, AIR 2008 Orissa 33
Ramika Bai & Ors., Vs. Nakul & Ors., AIR 2010 Chattisgarh 7
On the other hand, the respondents placed reliance on N. Manohar Reddy Vs. Happy Farm & Resorts & Ors., 1 (2014) CPJ 149 (NC), wherein the State Commission did not find favour with the plea raised by the complainants. It came to the conclusion that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time. The State Commission in support of its order cited the celebrated authority reported in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63(SC) and dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by that order, the present revisions have been filed. The counsel for the respondent/OP has again placed reliance on the above said authority reported in N. Manohar Reddy ( supra ).
Although, this Commission is aware that the Hon''ble Supreme Court did not condone the delay of 13 days in the case of "Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." , decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned, yet, the facts of this case are peculiar and wee bit different. It is settled law that the litigant should not suffer from the negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of their Advocates. This clearly appears to be a mistake committed by their Advocate. He should have
filed the appeal immediately and asked the State Commission to grant the relief of execution of Sale Deed. The above facts have given rise to an absurd position. The petitioners are in possession of the plots but the OPs have refused to execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainants. The complainants are alleging that they are being harassed by the arbitrary, illegal, highhandedness, capricious and despotic behaviour of the OPs. It was stated that the OPs have asked for whopping amount for execution of the sale deeds.
It must be borne in mind that the CP Act, 1986, is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. This was so held in the celebrated authority reported in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital, (2000) 7 SCC 668. It is also well settled that a Tribunal is endowed with such ancillary and incidental powers as necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing complete justice between the parties.
The Commission is bound to take a ''down to earth'' view. It must be borne in mind that altruistic motives never fail but the intent to grab the money avariously ought not to succeed. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeals. Without the execution of the sale deeds, the question of ownership will remain fluid. It will be difficult to judge who is the Registered owner of the tenement in dispute. Consequently, this is a peculiar case where the above said huge delay can be condoned subject to the payment of reasonable costs.
During the arguments, the counsel for the OPs argued that the OPs have not been paid the full amount. We are unable to locate any substance in this argument. The fora below have written time and again that the full payment has already been made. Counsel for the OPs further states that the OPs have raised unauthorized construction. He also informed that the authorities have given them notice. This is a matter between the authorities and the allottees. The OPs should have no concern with it. If there are unauthorized constructions, the municipal Corporation authorities will take care of that. In the result, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission, condone the delay under these unique circumstances subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by each of the complainants to the respondents/OPs, total being Rs.42,000/- through separate demand drafts, when the case is fixed for further hearing on merits, on 01.08.2015. The State Commission is directed to decide this case within three months from 1 August, onwards. In case the complainants do not pay the said costs, the cases may be st dismissed.