AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Kishan Rawat, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Disha Gupta, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. Animesh Tripathi, Advocate, for opposite party-2.
Tejinder Singh (the complainant) has filed MA/510/2023, for extension of four weeks’ time to comply the order dated 29.05.2023 passed in CC/600/2016. Operative portion of the order is quoted below:-
“In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party-1 is directed to issue fresh statement of account, charging interest @9% per annum on the balance amount payable by the complainant, after 12.01.2016, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The complainant will be given one month time to deposit the balance amount. On deposit of balance amount, the opposite parties will execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the flat allotted to the complainant, complete in all respect, within six weeks thereafter. If the complainant fails to deposit the balance amount, opposite party-1 shall cancel the allotment of the complainant and return the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, after deducting 10% of the basic sale price of the flat within period of two months thereafter.”
Madhulekha Sawhney (the complainant) has filed MA/511/2023, for extension of four weeks’ time to comply the order dated 29.05.2023 passed in CC/89/2017. Operative portion of the order is quoted below:-
“In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party-1 is directed to issue fresh statement of account, charging interest @9% per annum on the balance amount payable by the complainant, after 12.01.2016, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The complainant will be given one month time to deposit the balance amount. On deposit of balance amount, the opposite parties will execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the flat allotted to the complainant, complete in all respect, within six weeks thereafter. If the complainant fails to deposit the balance amount, opposite party-1 shall cancel the allotment of the complainant and return the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, after deducting 10% of the basic sale price of the flat within period of two months thereafter.”
Ranji Bhandari (deceased) (through her LRs) and Smt. Prama Bhandari (complainants) have filed MA/512/2023, for extension of four weeks’ time to comply the order dated 29.05.2023 passed in CC/3689/2017. Operative portion of the order is quoted below:-
“In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party-1 is directed to issue fresh statement of account, charging interest @9% per annum on the balance amount payable by the complainant, after 12.01.2016 and giving delay compensation till 11.01.2016, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The complainant will be given one month time to deposit the balance amount. On deposit of balance amount, the opposite parties will execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the flat allotted to the complainants, complete in all respect, within six weeks thereafter.”
Above complaints were finally decided by separate orders dated 29.05.2023, after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, Tejinder Singh filed RA/235/2023, Madhulekha Sawhney filed RA/237/2023 and Ranji Bhandari (through her LRs) and Smt. Prama Bhandari filed RA/236/2023, for review of above orders dated 29.05.2023. This Commission, by separate orders dated 01.08.2023, rejected RA/235/2023, RA/236/2023 and RA/237/2023. Thereafter, Tejinder Singh filed Civil Appeal Nos.5738-5739 of 2023, Madhulekha Sawhney filed Civil Appeal Nos.5741-5742 of 2023 and Ranji Bhandari (through her LRs) and Smt. Prama Bhandari filed Civil Appeal No.5743-5744 of 2023, challenging the orders dated 29.05.2023 and 01.08.2023. All these appeals were dismissed by a common order of Supreme Court dated 11.09.2023. Then, Tejinder Singh filed Misc. Application Nos.2080-2081 of 2023, Madhulekha Sawhney filed Misc. Application Nos.2082-2083 of 2023 and Ranji Bhandari (through her LRs) and Smt. Prama Bhandari filed Misc. Application Nos.2084-2085 of 2023, for extension of time, for compliance of the order of this Commission dated 29.05.2023, passed in their complaints. These applications were dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 03.10.2023, with liberty to move appropriate application before this Commission and this Commission has been directed to consider the applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The complainants then filed above misc. applications on 06.10.2023, for extension of four weeks’ time to comply the order dated 29.05.2023. The complainants stated that Review Applications were filed on 20.07.2023, within time from the date of supply of free certified copy (which were dispatched on 27.06.2013). Civil Appeals were filed on 22.08.2023 within 21 days of rejecting the review applications. Civil Appeals were dismissed on 11.09.2023 and the orders were uploaded on website on 13.09.2023. Misc. applications for extension of time were filed on 16.09.2023, which were dismissed on 03.10.2023.
The complainants informed opposite party-1, through emails dated 20.07.2023 and 06.08.2023, about filing of the review applications and through emails dated 04.09.2023 and 06.09.2023, about filing of the civil appeals before Supreme Court. The order dated 11.09.2023 was uploaded on website on 13.09.2023. The complainants gave an emails dated 14.09.2023 to opposite party-1, giving their calculation of the amount payable by them for compliance of the order dated 29.05.2023 and their willingness to deposit the amount within three days. However, opposite party-1 issued cancellation letters to the complainants on 14.09.2023. The complainants, vide emails dated 21.09.2023 and 22.09.2023, informed opposite party-1 that they had moved applications before Supreme Court for extension of the period for compliance of the order dated 29.05.2023.
Although opposite party-1 raised demands, vide letters dated 19.06.2023 and issued reminder dated 26.07.2023 and final notice dated 29.08.2023, allowing time to deposit till 09.09.2023 but the complainants were bonafide availing statutory remedies of the review and the appeal, with due diligence, as such, time allowed to deposit in the order dated 29.05.2023 be extended for a period of four weeks in the interest of justice. Although demand of Rs.13951987/- from Tejinder Singh is not correct but without prejudice to his right, Tejinder Singh is ready to deposit the amount within extended period. Other complainants are also ready to deposit the demanded amount within extended period.
Opposite party-1 filed its reply in MA/510/2023, in which, material facts stated in the misc. applications, have not been disputed. Opposite party-1 stated that in compliance of the orders dated 29.05.2023, OP-1 had raised demands, vide letters dated 19.06.2023. These letters were served upon the complainants but they did not pay even the amount according to their own calculations. The complainants were required to deposit the demanded amount within one month of service of the demand letter but they did not deposit the demanded amount then reminders dated 26.07.2023 were issued to them. After dismissal of review applications, final notices dated 29.08.2023 were issued to the complainants, giving them time to deposit till 09.09.2023. Knowing well the poor financial condition of OP-1, the complainants were deliberately exploiting OP-1, who was not in position to contest the litigations. The complainants, malafide, filed the review applications and the appeals to linger on the proceeding. Review applications were dismissed on 01.08.2023 and civil appeals were dismissed on 11.09.2023. Thereafter, cancellation letters were issued on 14.09.2023. As OP-1 was in urgent need of money, the flats, which were earlier allotted to the complainants, were allotted to Trident Infrahomes Private Limited, vide allotment letter dated 14.09.2023, who had deposited Rs.4/- crores also with OP-1. As third party right has been created over the flats, as such, applications for extension of time are liable to be rejected.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The counsel for the opposite party-1 raised first issue relating to the maintainability of these applications. But the applications are maintainable under Section 148 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which provides that the Court may enlarge the time for doing any act, prescribed or allowed by the Code. Supreme Court in Sital Prasad Vs. Kishori Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1236, held that when the appeal filed from preliminary decree is dismissed, the time allowed for deposit of money in preliminary decree has to be extended. In D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani, (2010) 8 SCC 546, held that if the application under Section 148 C.P.C. is not malafide, then time can be extended for performance of order/decree.
So far as the argument based upon the doctrine of merger is concerned, in the present case, Supreme Court itself has permitted to file the application before this Commission and directed this Commission to pass appropriate order. Therefore, this doctrine will not apply.
In the present case, the orders of this Commission in the complaints were passed on 29.05.2023. Review Applications were dismissed on 01.08.2023 and Civil Appeals were dismissed on 11.09.2023. Thereafter, the complainants filed applications for extension of the time before Supreme Court on 16.09.2023, which were dismissed on 03.10.2023. Above misc. applications have been filed on 06.10.2023. Opposite party-1, itself has extended period for deposit till 09.09.2023. The complainants exercised due diligence in pursuing their statutory remedied, for which, they are legally entitled and it cannot be said that the complainants have committed deliberate delay for malafide reason.
So far as creation of third party right is concerned, the counsel for the complainants relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Krishnaji Pandharinath Balwankar Vs. Anusayabai Sidram Gulbile, AIR 1959 Bom 475 and Supreme Court in Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Asim Chatterjee, (2012) 2 SCC 641, in which, it has been held that pendente lite transfer will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court against the suit property and pendency of the suit starts from the date of filing of the suit and continues till the date of expiry of the limitation for execution of the decree under Explanation to Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1881. As such allotment made on 14.09.2023 does not affect the jurisdiction of this Commission over the flats allotted to the complainants, for which the complainants are entitled in terms of the orders of this Commission dated 29.05.2023.
ORDER
In view of aforesaid discussions, MA/510/2023, MA/511/2023 and MA/512/2023 are allowed. Time granted in the orders dated 29.05.2023 is extended for a period of 30 days from the date of this order. The complainants are permitted to deposit the demanded amount, with up to date interest @9% per annum, within period of one month from the date of this judgment.