Rohan Developers vs Chandrakant Gandhi

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai dated 15.12.2014 in CC/13/221. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: - "[5] Thus, by filing present complaint the complainants are seeking relief of possession of flat. Moreover, the complainants have shown their readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration amount to the opponents. It is not in dispute that till this day, neither possession has been handed over to the complainants by the opponents nor money deposited by the complainants is refunded to them by the opponents. Thus, in the present case ''cause of action'' is continuous. A weak plea has been raised by the opponents that complainants have failed to get the agreement registered by paying the requisite stamp duty and fine. As observed earlier, the complainants are claiming possession of the subject flat. It is a case of continuing cause of action. These observations are fortified by the decision of the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Juliet vs. Quadros vs. Malti Kumar and Ors., 2005 4 CPJ 51. Hence, it will have to be held that present complaint filed by the complainants is within limitation. Hence, the plea raised by the opponents that complaint is barred by limitation deserves to be rejected.

[6] Plea taken by the opponents that the agreement in favour of the complainants is terminated by the opponents cannot be entertained at this stage. It cannot be treated as a ''preliminary issue''. It will have to be determined whether said agreement was terminated by the opponents, legally. Said issue shall be decided on merits at the time of final adjudication of the complaint upon taking both the parties finally.

[7] In view of foregoing discussion, present application filed by the opponents stands dismissed. Costs shall be costs in the cause.

[8] On perusal of the record it is evident that both the parties have already filed their respective affidavits of evidence. Hence, now the complaint stands adjourned to 29/04/2015 either for filing counter -affidavits or additional affidavits, if any by the parties or filing pursis by the parties closing their respective evidence.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is aggrieved of dismissal of his plea regarding limitation.

THE impugned order is in the nature of interim order and the complaint is yet to be decided. Therefore, we are not willing to entertain the revision petition. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the State Commission after considering the evidence of the parties shall re -decide the issue of limitation in the context of the evidence produced.