Vallabh Builders Partnership vs JAGRUT NAGRIK

THE complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the following reliefs: - a. The opponent be directed to provide the completion and occupation certificate issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to the Complainants alongwith the Sale Deed in respect of Shop Nos. 1 and 2 in Vallabh Avenue or the opponent be directed to pay the total sale consideration amount of Rs.7,03,000/ - alongwith 18% interest p.a. from the date of payment till the date when the opponent pays.

b. The opponent be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,700/ - to complainant no. 2 towards conveyance and other miscellaneous expenses. c. To pay the complainant No. 2 an amount of Rs.50,000/ - towards mental pain and agony. d. To bear the cost of Rs.10,000/ - for the present complaint.

e. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper by this Forum.

VIDE order dated 07.10.2009, the District Forum directed as under: - The complaint filed by the complainant is partly granted. The present opponent is ordered to execute sale deed and give occupation and completion certificates to the Complainant within 90 days from the date of the knowledge of this order to the complainant. Thereafter also, the opponent is not able to provide completion and occupation certificates and to get the sale deed executed, than the opponent is ordered to pay Rs.07,03,000/ - to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of receiving this order and in consideration the complainant has to handover possession of the said property to the opponent upon receipt of the amount. More over the opponent is ordered to pay Rs.5,000/ - to the complainant within 90 days from the date of the order towards the mental agony and cost of the complaint. In default the complainant shall have right to recover above mentioned amount, 9% interest thereon, cost and execution, cost of Service from the person and property of the opponent.

THE aforesaid order passed by the District Forum was not challenged by the petitioner/OP, as a result of which it became final. However, since the petitioner did not comply with the order, the complainant filed execution petition seeking implementation of the said order. The following order was passed by the District Forum in the said execution proceedings: - The applicant is hereby ordered to withdraw the amount of Rs.7,55,450/ - and Rs.28,350/ - deposited before this Forum by the original opponent and hand over possession of the property in the dispute to the opponent within 30 days from the date receipt of this order. If order is not complied with, then in that case Application Ext. 17 filed by the opponent will be treated as application under section 127 of the Consumer Protection Act and will be proceeded further separately according to law. This execution application and applications filed by the applicant in this proceeding stand disposed of in view of the above order. No order as to costs. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 10.09.2013, the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum dated 22.02.2011 and directed as under: -

ii) The Opposite party, Vallabh Builders is directed to provide completion certificate, occupation certificate and Sale Deed to the complainant (Maheshbhai Dhirajlal Soni) within two months from the date of this order. If the opposite party does not comply with the order, then the Complainant is at liberty to initiate fresh Darkhast proceedings against the opposite party before the District Forum at Vadodara and for non -compliance of the order the complainant may initiate proceedings u/s 27 of the Act.

iii) The opposite party, Vallabh Builders, is directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - to the complainant, Maheshbhai Dhirajlal Soni, towards cost.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner/OP is before us by way of this revision petition. Since there is a delay in filing the revision petition, I.A. No. 6639/2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of the said delay. The application, to the extent, it seeks to explain the delay, reads as under: - 2. That, the petitioner was not aware about the impugned judgment and order being passed by the State Commission. It was only when the notice dated 02.05.2014 in the Execution Petition No. 21 / 2014 was served upon the Petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the impugned judgment and order being passed by the State Commission. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the said judgment on 21.05.2014. The said certified copy of the impugned judgment was issued to the petitioner on 11.07.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner took immediate steps to file the present revision petition before this Hon ble Commission. It would thus, be seen that the petitioner has come to this Commission with a specific case that it was not at all aware of the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 before it received notice dated 2.05.2014 issued by the District Forum in execution petition No. 21/2014 and it is only on receipt of the said notice that it came to know about the impugned order.

THE complainants have drawn our attention to the print out taken from Confonet which shows that the order passed by the State Commission on 10.09.2013 was duly uploaded on the said system. That apart, a perusal of the relevant register maintained by the State Commission would show that a certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 929/2011 was obtained by Sh. V.M. Pancholi, Advocate on 14.10.2013. Sh. V.M. Pancholi was the counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission as would be evident from the application dated 21.11.2011 filed before the State Commission seeking permission to submit additional citations and the order passed by the State Commission on 19.09.2011 in the aforesaid appeal No. 929/2011 where presence of Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Advocate has been duly recorded for the petitioner. The aforesaid documents clearly show that Mr. V.M. Pancholi, who was representing the petitioner before the State Commission had obtained a certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission on 14.10.2013.

THIS is not the case of the petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay that despite obtaining copy of the order on 13.09.2013 from the State Commission, Sh. V.M. Pancholi, Advocate retained the same with him and did not transmit it to the petitioner. In the normal course of his conduct as a counsel representing the petitioner before the State Commission, Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Advocate would have sent the certified copy obtained from the State Commission on 14.10.2013 to the petitioner firm soon after the said copy was obtained by him. If computed from 14.10.2013 when the copy of the order was received by Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Advocate, the prescribed period of limitation expired on about 14.01.2014. The revision petition having been filed on 23.09.2014, there is a delay of more than 8 months in filing the revision petition and there is no attempt to explain the said delay.

MORE importantly, the petitioner has not come with clean hands to this Commission since it has withheld from this Commission the fact that certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by its counsel from State Commission on 14.10.2013. A person seeking discretionary reliefs such as condonation of delay in filing a revision petition is expected to approach this Commission with clean hands and disclose all facts germane to the matter irrespective they are favourable or unfavourable to him. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have disclosed to this Commission that a certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by Mr. V.M. Pancholi from the State Commission on 14.10.2013. That having not been done, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.