ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTN. LTD. vs NEERAJ SAXENA

THE revision application under reference has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.6.1999, passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut, in Execution Case arising out of original Complaint Case Nos. 385/92, 386/92, 387/92, 388/92, 389/92 and 390/92, as a one consolidated order in Case No. 385/92.

IT is not necessary to mention in detail the facts of the case as previously the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Meerut, on 16.1.1995 directing allotment of one flat to the complainant instead of six flats. Against this order, execution proceedings took place before the District Consumer Forum, Meerut, in which orders were passed on 16.1.1998, 14.6.1995 and 2.8.1996. In this revision, the State Commission allowed one more opportunity to the parties for compliance of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. In compliance to this order, according to the revisionist, he gave intimation to the complainant indicating therein price of one of the flats and the amount to be paid by the new allottee after adjusting part of the amount paid towards the cost of six flats. According to the revisionist, compliance was not made by the complainant after receipt of the notice which was sent by Registered Post. According to the opposite party, no compliance of the order was made by the present revisionist within the time fixed by the State Comission, hence execution proceedings were started against the present revisionist in which the District Consumer Forum passed an order on 2.6.1999 stating therein that order dated 16.1.1998, passed by the Forum, was not complied by the present revisionist. It was further mentioned that the present revisionist has not complied the order within one month from the date of the order of the revision passed by the State Commission. Commission, therefore, ordered for putting up the file on 17.6.1999 for further orders. Against the above order, the present revision has been filed.

We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. Preliminary objection of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that the order dated 2.6.1999 is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against this order. A perusal of this order dated 2.6.1999 goes to show that no final order has been passed on that date but only the file has been ordered to be put up on 17.6.1999 for further orders, hence no final decision has been made by the District Consumer Forum affecting the rights of the parties. Therefore, no revision lies against the orders dated 2.6.1999 by which 17.6.1999 was fixed for further orders. Revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. Order Revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent. Compliance be made within two months. Let copies be issued as per norms to all concerned. Revision dismissed with costs.