HOUSING COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY, U.P. AVAS AVUM VIKAS PARISHAD vs DIGVIJAY LAL REWAL

PREVIOUSLY this was filed as Appeal No. 891/SC/1996 but as it was against the order of the District Forum passed in execution case, therefore, only a revision lies against that order under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission under the power conferred by Section 17(1)(b) has already got the appeal converted into revision. Hence it is being decided as a revision.

THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 6.6.1996 in Execution Case No. 3/1995 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence available on record.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists has argued that a house was allotted to the complainant/decree-holder by the U.P. Avas Avum Vikas Parishad at Dehradun. The cost of the house was deposited by the complainant. According to learned Counsel when the house was not given to the complainant, he filed a complaint before the District Forum at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, being Complaint Case No. 462/1993 which was decided on 14.11.1994. An appeal against that judgment was filed by the revisionist before the State Commission at Jabalpur which was dismissed. It may be mentioned that the District Forum, Jabalpur decided the matter ex-parte and the application for setting aside ex-parte order was also dismissed. Thereafter the judgment was sent for execution by Jabalpur District Forum to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun which passed an order in execution proceedings against which the present revision has been filed, challenging the jurisdiction of District Forum, Jabalpur on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel the cause of action arose at Dehradun because the property, i.e. the house which was allotted to the complainant is situated at Dehradun and only the District Forum at Dehradun had jurisdiction to decide the matter. ACCORDING to learned Counsel as the matter has been decided by District Forum, Jabalpur, the judgment passed by is a nullity and it can be ignored in any proceedings. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that once a judgment has been delivered at Jabalpur and an appeal against that judgment has also been dismissed, that order cannot be challenged in any other State Forum or State Commission. In order to appreciate this controversy, it will be better to go into the provisions of Consumer Protection Act relating to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The jurisdiction of District Forum has been defined under Section 11 of the Act. This section reads as under : "Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more, then, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

THUS we find that the case can be filed only in that Forum where at the time of institution of the complaint the opposite parties or any one of them actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, then the case may be filed in that Forum. THUS the provisions of this section are clear that a case can be filed in that District Forum within whose jurisdiction the cause of action etc. has arisen. Section 17 deals with the jurisdiction of the State Commission which provides that the appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State can be filed within the State Commission of that State. In the present case as has already been seen, the District Forum, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh has passed a decree for execution while the matter has been filed in the State Commission which had already dismissed the appeal. According to learned Counsel both these judgments are of no use because they are without jurisdiction on account of the fact that no cause of action or part cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Forum or the State Commission at Jabalpur. In the case of Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 340, it was has that the decree passed in appeal by the Court which has no jurisdiction to decide the matter is a nullity because the Court had no jurisdiction. A similar view was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Hiralal Moolchand Doshi v. Barot Ramanlal Ranchhoddas, (1993) 2 SCC p. 458, in which it was held that where the decree is without jurisdiction it is a nullity.

THUS we find that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act go to show that the complaint can be filed within the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in view of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act. As no part cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh, the District Forum or the State Commission Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to pass judgment which becomes nullity and can be ignored in any proceedings including ancilliary proceedings. In a recent case of Union Bank of India v. M/s. Seppo Rally OY & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 633=1999 (8) Supreme 200, the Apex Court has held that when no part cause of action arose at Delhi, Delhi State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In that case the bank guarantee was given in Saharanpur while the cognizance of the case was taken by the State Commission at Delhi. It was further held that no part cause of action had arisen in Delhi. Therefore, the complaint filed at Delhi is misconceived and is without jurisdiction.

THUS the position of law is clear that where no part of cause of action arose and other conditions do not exist as provided under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum of that particular place cannot take cognizance of any complaint which was filed before it. That proceedings is a nullity and can be ignored and appeal/execution case or in ancilliary proceedings. THUS the judgment delivered at Jabalpur and appeal filed in the State Commission at Jabalpur will not amount to a valid judgment. These judgments can be ignored even by an Execution Court as has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thus we come to the conclusion that the judgment passed by District Forum as well as State Commission, Jabalpur are without jurisdiction and being nullity cannot be enforced in Dehradun or any place within U.P. Therefore, the revisionist, U.P. Avas Avum Vikas Parishad can ignore this decree. The execution proceedings which are pending without the State of U.P., on the basis of judgment delivered at Jabalpur, are without any jurisdiction.

Thus the revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

IT has been argued that an amount of Rs. 4,02,855/- has already been paid by the revisionist to the complainant. If any amount has been paid by the U.P. Avas Avum Vikas Parishad to the complainant, then the amount may not be recovered from the complainant and this matter shall be decided in the fresh proceedings taken by the U.P. Avas Avum Vikas Parishad or the complainant. The amount so paid by revisionist shall be subject to any proceedings taken by any party. No other point was raised. Order

THE revision is allowed and the execution proceedings pending at Dehradun are without jurisdiction and are set aside. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Revision allowed.