LexJITEN K. AJMERA & ANR. versus M/S TEJAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 243 JITEN K. AJMERA & ANR. v. M/S TEJAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2019) MAY 6, 2019 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or XLI, r. 27 – Production of additional evidence at the appellate stage – Application by appellants for bringing additional evidence on record, along with the documents sought to be produced in the pending appeal – Rejected by the State Commission as also National Commission – On appeal, held: The documents came into existence after the appeal was filed before the State Commission – They are of relevance to establish that the appellants were not in a position to obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation until the unauthorized structures were removed – In the absence thereof, the appellants would not be in a position to substantiate their case that they were unable to obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and comply with the directions issued by the District Forum – State Commission erred in rejecting the application u/Or XLI, r. 27 by merely stating that the documents are “not necessary” – Said order is an unreasoned one – Thus, the order passed by the State Commission as also the order passed by the National Commission is set aside – Matter remitted to the State Commission to take the additional documents on record, and decide the appeal on merits. A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713 : [2015] 14 SCR 190 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2015] 14 SCR 190 Referred to. Para 3.2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 175 of 2016. [2019] 7 S.C.R. 243 243 A B C D E F G H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R. P. N. Puri, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Abhishek Puri, J. S. Marahatta, Advs. for the Appellants. Prasenjit Keswani, Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted. 1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the Order dated 16.03.2018 passed in Revision Petition No. 175 of 2016 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”). The Revision Petition was filed to challenge the Interim Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the State Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 85 of 2013. The Appellants herein had filed an Application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC for permission to file additional documents, which have come into existence after the filing of the Appeal before the State Commission. 2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under: 2.1. The Appellants are the sons of Late Smt. Mrudula K. Ajmera who was the owner and in possession of a plot of land bearing CTS No. 284/38, Military Road, Marol Village, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400059. The Late Smt. Mrudula K. Ajmera constructed a building viz. Tejas Apartments comprising of Ground plus 7 Upper Floors. The flats were sold to various purchasers on ownership basis. The flat owners formed the Respondent – Housing Society viz. M/s Tejas Co-operative Housing Society. 2.2. The Respondent – Housing Society filed Consumer Complaint No. 570 of 2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Sub-District. It was alleged that the Appellants/Opposite Parties had failed to supply service amenities to the members of the Respondent – Housing Society, failed to obtain the A B C D E F G H 245 Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, and execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the society. The District Forum partly allowed the Consumer Complaint vide Order dated 27.02.2013. It was declared that the Appellants had failed to supply the service amenities to the Respondent – Housing Society, and obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, and execute the Conveyance Deed. The District Forum directed the Appellants to obtain the Occupancy Certificate for the building within 3 months from the date of judgment. If the Appellants failed to obtain the Occupancy Certificate within the period specified, they would be liable to pay Rs. 500/- per day to the society. The Appellants were further directed to execute
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.