MUKESH vs PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , Suman Bhatia V. Punjab State Electricity Board , 2005 1 Cpj 796

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed: The appellant -complainant had filed Complaint No. 823 of 1999 on 29.9.1999 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short, the ''District Forum''). The memo of parties was as follows : ''Mukesh s/o Karam Chand through the Citizen Consumer Protection Forum (R), Chawla Complex, New Tagore Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana -Applicant/complainant versus Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana -Respondent'' Reply to the complaint had been filed by the Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana. There was no objection in the written statement that proper/necessary parties had not been impleaded in the complaint. However, an application was moved by the complainant for the withdrawal of the complaint on the ground of technical defect that the opposite party had not been properly sued. Statement was made by the complainants Counsel on 1.2.2000 that ''I withdraw this complaint since the opposite party was not properly sued''. On the same day, i.e., 1.2.2000, the District Forum passed the following order : ''Appearance : Sh. S.D. Nagpal for the complainant. Present : Both the Members. File taken up today on the application. The representative of the complainant has made a statement that he withdraws the complaint since the opposite party was not properly sued. In view of the statement this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. The document be given to the complainant against receipt.''

IT may be mentioned here that neither any permission was sought from the District Forum to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action nor any such permission was granted. However, a fresh Complaint No. 1370 of 2003 was filed on 25.11.2003, in which Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana through Estate Officer had been impleaded as the respondent instead of Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana, who was the respondent in the earlier complaint. The complaint has been dismissed at the threshold by the District Forum primarily on two grounds, (i) that the earlier complaint having been dismissed as withdrawn, no fresh complaint lay on the same cause of action and (ii) since the earlier complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.2.2000 (wrongly mentioned by the District Forum as 27.1.2000), fresh Complaint No. 1370 of 2003 which was filed on 25.11.2003 was not maintainable i.e., more than 2 years after the first complaint was withdrawn. Hence the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the earlier complaint was against Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana, whereas the present complaint is against the Punjab Urban Development Authority, Ludhiana through the Estate Officer. We are of the view that there was no difference between the parties in the sense that the Punjab Development Authority is represented by the Estate Officer himself. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that the first complaint and the second complaint are on the same cause of action. No permission was sought/granted to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. We had the occasion to consider similar point in I (2005) CPJ 796=Appeal No. 107 of 2005 Suman Bhatia v. Punjab State Electricity Board, decided on 25.1.2005 and it was held that if no permission is obtained while getting a complaint dismissed as withdrawn, fresh complaint would not lie. Reliance was placed by this Commission on the National Commissions judgment in S.A. Raja v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others, III (2002) CPJ 322 (NC). Apart from that, the earlier complaint was got dismissed on 1.2.2000 and a fresh complaint was filed on 25.11.2003. A litigant cannot take its own time to file a fresh complaint (even if it is held to be maintainable) at any time after the earlier complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.

BEFORE parting with this judgment, we may observe that neither the earlier complaint nor the later complaint has been decided on merits. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the complainant had deposited the lease money and executed the lease deed. This judgment or the judgment of the District Forum will not come in the way of the complainant or the respondent to deal with the case relating to the house in dispute in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.