UNIQUE BUILDERS vs ELVINO BERNARDO D'SOUZA

THIS revision petition is filed by the revision applicants/opposite parties against the order dated 6.1.2004 passed in Complaint No. 130/1999 by the Consunmer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa at Porverim, dismissing the application filed by the opposite parties and passing an order on the application filed by the complainant giving interim order of injunction.

HEARD the Counsel for the revision applicants/opposite parties and the respondent complainant. It is to be noted that when the matter has come to the final stage before the District Forum application was filed by the opposite parties dated 4.4.2003 for dismissal of the complaint. On the same date namely 4.4.2003 the complainant also made an application for interim order of injunction.

The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the District Forum, North Goa calls for interference. Our finding on that point is in the negative for the following reasons. No doubt the learned Counsel for the revision applicants has strenuously argued that the order passed by the District Forum suffers from irregularity and illegality and has relied on the following rulings: VII (2002) SLT 306=AIR 2003 Supreme Court 624 in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, wherein it has been held that the power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is well settled and undoubted. However, it is accompanied by three riders. Firstly, the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the Court, secondly it should be brought to the notice of the Court consistently with rules of procedure enabling Court to take note of such events and affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting or explaining such events; and thirdly the subsequent event must have a material bearing on right to relief of any party. 1996 Vol. 4 Supreme Court Case page 622 in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, wherein it has been held that interim orders-stay or injunction-should not be granted in a mechanical manner-it is no consideration that if aggrieved by the order the other party can apply for vacating the stay or injunction. AIR 1968 Allahabad 22 in Anand Prakash and Another v. Asst. Registrar Co-operative Societies and Others -Arbitrator has no inherent, implied or incidental or consequential power in exercise of which he can pass order of stay or order in the nature of injunction. AIR 1974 Delhi page 207, Raman Hosiery Factory, Delhi and Others v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and Others, interim injunction pending disposal of suit-where final relief cannot be granted no interim injunction can be issued.

THERE is no dispute with respect to the principles enunciated in the above decisions. The learned Counsel for the revision applicants has vehemently urged before us that in the agreement itself there is provision for terminating the agreement and that termination is to be exercised and if it is allowed the basis of the complaint falls to the ground and, therefore, the present complaint is to be dismissed. For that purpose the application was filed when the matter was at the final stage.

THE learned Counsel for the revision applicants submited that the termination of the agreement if accepted takes away the right of the complainant and it will be a matter of civil nature with respect to the relief claimed by the complainant and the Consumer Protection Act will not be applicable. It has been urged by the Counsel for the respondent complainant that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act for termination of agreement subsequent to institution of the complaint before Forum. All these contentions can be urged at the final stage of the complaint and the same can be decided by the District Forum on merits. The District Forum, after considering all the aspects has come to the conclusion that since the matter has reached its final stage of disposal where in the contentions of the opposite parties will be assessed on merits and it would be improper to allow the application made by the opposite parties seeking dismissal of the case, hence the District Forum dismissed the application filed by the opposite parties for dismissal of the complaint. Further, it has also discussed the contentions of both the parties and passed an order on the application of the complainant restraining the opposite parties from alienating or interfering with the premises till disposal of the complaint on merits subject to the complainant depositing a fixed deposit certificate of an amount equivalent to the balance payment due to the opposite parties as per the agreement. The line of reasoning given by the District Forum in dismissing the application of the opposite parties of the complaint and also passing an interim order of injunction in our opinion does not call for interference in the revision as we see no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum. The discretion exercised by passing interim order till disposal of the complaint finally in our opinion also does not call for interference. Hence the revision petition filed by the opposite parties in our opinion is to be refused and rejected as the District Forum has come to the conclusion that all the points which have been raised by the opposite parties can be urged at the time of final argument and the matter may be decided finally once and for all. When such being the case the revision application filed by the opposite parties fails and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the District Forum on 20.7.2004 without fail and without notice and the North District Forum to dispose of the complaint expeditiously. Complaint dismissed.