AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adv. Asif Ali appeared on behalf of the Complainant.
Adv. Rohit Nain, Proxy Counsel appeared on behalf of main Counsel Sh. Jatin S. Sethi and submitted that he has isolated himself as his colleague has been tested positive for Covid-19. He sought short adjournment.
We note that Respondents have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleadment of DDA as party in the case. The Complainant has filed rejoinder along with reply to application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. We have perused the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.
After considered the grounds mentioned in the application we reject the same as Respondents neither conceived the project nor collected money none acquired land after consulting DDA. Since DDA was never associated with the project we have taken a decision to reject the application. Moreover, the Complainants are seeking refund of amount deposited with Respondents under Section 18 and 12 of RE(RD) Act. 2016, and to decide the question of entitlement of the Complainant for refund, impleadment of DDA is not necessary.
We note that the subject complaint that has been pending for more than six months and Respondents has already filed a reply in this case. The pleadings are complete. So there is no justification for adjournment of the case for arguments. The Respondents can file written arguments.
We give time till 31.07.2022 to Respondents to file their final written arguments and submissions.
We further note that Respondents have not deposited the cost of Rs. 5000/- imposed of them for not filing the replies on time. In case they fail to deposit the cost by 31.07.2022 we will not consider their replies.
The case is reserved for orders.