State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionSantosh S/O. Sudhakarrao Mukhedkar vs Sainath S/O. Narayanrao Paitwar on 20 April, 20091                           F.A.682-07




      STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
           MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                          Date of filing : 17.07.2007
                                          Date of Order : 20.04.2009

FIRST APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 42 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.

Santosh S/o. Sudhakarrao Mukhedkar
R/o. Anandnagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.                          ... Appellant

         -VERSUS-

Sainath S/o. Narayanrao Paitwar
R/o. Cidco, Near Vasant Naik College,
New Nanded.                                 ...Respondent


      Coram : 1) Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon'ble Judicial Member2) Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member.Present:   None for appellant. None for respondent.:: O R A L O R D E R ::Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon'ble Judicial Member1.    The present appeal is filed by the original opponent no.1 against
the judgment and order dated 19.09.2006 in complaint case No.42/2006
passed by District Consumer Forum, Nanded.2.    The present appellant is directed to execute the registered
agreement of the plot in question. In the alternative, the appellant is
directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the interest @ 18% p.a.
from 24.02.2002. Forum also directed the appellant to pay the amount of
Rs.1,000/- towards the cost.2                            F.A.682-072.    The appellant filed application for condonation of the delay. The
delay caused is shown to be 241 days.3.    Notice was issued to the respondent. Adv. N. B. Jadhav, had
appeared for respondent. Today on the date of hearing neither appellant
nor respondent appeared. We perused the papers. The judgment and
order is passed in the complaint on 19.09.2006 whereas, the appeal is
filed on 17.07.2007. It is the contention of the appellant that the notice
was not served on the appellant. Intentionally wrong address was given.
Notice was affixed on others premises.         It is contended that the
respondent had filed execution petition before Forum. When the
appellant came to know this fact appellant filed the application for
setting aside the exparte order. The application was rejected on
06.01.2007 on the ground no such provision exists inC.P. Act. It is
contended that, in the execution petition the appellant had raised the
objection on 21.01.2007, which was rejected on 21.04.2007 on the
ground there is no such provision. It is contended that appellant had no
knowledge about the order in review petition and objection raised in
execution. It is contended that in the execution petition U/s.27 of the Act
show cause notice was issued to appellant on 13.07.2007. On the basis
of show cause notice the appellant approached the Commission and filed
the appeal on 17.07.2007and thus delay is caused.4.    We perused the papers. On perusal of papers it reveals that, the
appellant was served with the notice issued by the Forum. Even then
appellant did not appear before the Forum and thus exparte order was
passed on 19.09.2006. It also appears from the papers that the appellant
had filed the application for setting aside the order, which was also
disposed by the Forum by order dated 06.01.2007. Even after dismissal
                                            3                                   F.A.682-07



of the said application, instead of preferring the appeal the appellant filed
the objection in the execution petition on 20.01.2007, which was also
dismissed by the Forum on 21.04.2007. It appears from the record that
the appellant was in the know of judgment and order passed by the
Forum         against   him.   Appellant   ought    to   have   filed   this     appeal
immediately after he came to know about judgment and order. Appellant
filed the application for setting aside the exparte order, after rejection of
the same; the appellant raised the objection in the execution petition.
The time spent for review petition as well as objection in execution can
not be considered for condoning delay. Appellant knowingly full well that
there are no such provisions inC.P. Actfiled the review petition and
objection in execution. Thus explanation tried to be given by the
appellant can not be said to be just and proper. We are not inclined to
condone the delay. The right accrued by the respondent by the judgment
and order passed by the Forum can not be taken out because of
negligence and the wrong tactics adopted by the appellant. Condonation
application is dismissed, consequently, appeal stands dismissed. Stay
stands vacated. No order as to cost.Mrs. Uma S. Bora                          S.G. Deshmukh
                 Member                        Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar