AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order of the State Commission, Delhi, rejecting a preliminary objection raised by the petitioner herein that the complaint petition filed against the petitioner was not maintainable in law. The petitioner is a builder and the question raised by him is whether the activity carried on by him constitutes ''service'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 so as to entitle the complainant to be regarded as a consumer. We do not wish to deal with the said question at the present stage since an allied question decided by us in MM. Sood v. Lucknow Development Authority (First Appeal No. 10 of 1991) 1992 (2) CPJ 499 (NC) is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court and the operation of the order passed by this Commission in that case stands stayed by the Supreme Court. Hence, we consider that the best course to be adopted in this case is to direct the State Commission to proceed to dispose of the remaining issues arising in this case also so that unnecessary delay can be avoided and the entire case can be brought up before us at the instance of either party after the disposal of the matter by the State Commission.
WE make it clear that we are not expressing any view on the correctness or otherwise of the finding entered into by the State Commission on the preliminary point and it will be open to the present revision petitioner to urge all his contentions regarding the said question as and when the case in its entirety comes up before us. This revision petition is disposed of as above. There will be no direction regarding costs.