Order 7 rule 11 s 151 of cpc
sunil
(Querist) 17 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 767 OF 2014
(From the order dated 03.05.2013 in Appeal No. 2072/2008 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh)
Lalit, S/o. Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o. Sadari Road, Baghana
District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh …. Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Sunil Jadhav, S/o. Sh. Harihar Rao Jadhav
R/o. 36, Shikshak Colony
Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh
2. Chief Municipal Corporation Officer
Municipal Corporation Council
Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh … Respondents
Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Thukral,
PRONOUNCED ON _3rd MARCH, 2014
ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 170 days in filing the
revision petition. The Petitioner has explained the delay in para 2 of the application moved for
condonation of delay, which is reproduced, as follows:-
“2. That there is a delay of 153 days in filing
the aforesaid revision petition. The reason of delay is being that the
counsel of the petitioner Shri Parag Kale, Advocate did not inform the
petitioner about passing of impugned order dated 03.05.2013, whereby the
appeal of the respondent No.2 was dismissed and it was only on the
enquiry of the petitioner No.1 in the second week of August, 2013, that
the counsel informed the petitioner about passing of impugned order.
Thereafter, the petitioner collected the brief from Shri Parag Kale,
Advocate and engaged the present counsel and handed over the brief to
him on 31.08.2013, for filing the revision petition. But unfortunately, the car
of the counsel was stolen on 04.09.2013 from the District Court at
Faridabad and consequently, the counsel lost many files which were kept
in the dikki of the said car, including the file of the present matter. The
counsel, accordingly, informed the petitioner regarding loss of file on
12.09.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner took some time to collect the entire
documents and orders from District Forum and State Commission and he
again handed over the brief of the present matter to the counsel on
12.11.2013. The counsel then drafted the revision petition and sent it to
the petitioner at Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) for vetting and signature. The
petitioner, after vetting, returned the matter to the counsel on 10.12.2013.
Thereafter, the counsel got the entire documents and orders translated
into English because all the documents and orders were in Hindi
Language and got the translation of the matter on 16.01.2014 and is
filing the same today”.
2. As a matter of fact, there is a delay of 170 days as per the report submitted by the
Registry. There is huge delay in filing the present revision petition and day-to-day delay has
not been explained. There is no plea or evidence that the petitioner had visited the office of his
counsel, Sh. Parag Kale to post himself about the next date of hearing. The car of the Advocate
was stolen on 04.08.2013, but he sent the information on 12.09.2013. The revision petition was
filed on 27.01.2014, knowing well that the case was going to be barred by limitation. The file
can be reconstructed, within a week. The duty of the Advocate is to inspect the record and he
can file even true copies of the record, for the time being. Everyday, the Advocates pray for
permission to file the certified copies after some period. That request is always allowed. There
is no cogent or
plausible reason which may prove the case of the petitioner.
3. The law has a crystalline clarity. The following authorities neatly dovetail this view. (1)
Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)
(2) R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) (3) Ram Lal &
Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 (4) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial
Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.
4. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay
was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in
time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to
lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. The statute also prescribes a time bound
programme regarding the deposit to be made.
5. Similar view was taken in two other cases, reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant
Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83 and Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila,
1997 (2)
Raj LW 845.
6. It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is
negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s.
Chawala & Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues, 1971 ACJ 92.
7. The case is clearly barred by time.
8. Now, let us turn to the merits of this case. The complaint was filed by one, Dr.Sunil
Jadhav, against Chief Municipal Corporation Officer. The case was decreed in favour of
Dr.Sunil Jadhav and the Corporation was directed to allot land No.37 under Scheme No.30 in
the name of the complainant and the land was to be registered in the name of the
complainant, Dr.Sunil Jadhav, after receipt of the balance premium amount of Rs.3,20,771/-
and lease rent amount of Rs.1,603/- from the date of allotment, till 31.03.2007.
9. Aggrieved by this order, the Municipal Corporation Officer, Madhya Pradesh, preferred
an appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner, Sh.Lalit, moved an application for
impleadment as a party because he claimed that he was the owner of the said land.
However, the order of the District Forum discussed his case as well in its judgment. Paras
11, 12 & 13 of
the said order reads as follows:-
“11. The complainant had given his offer @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft. and had
submitted the offer of Rs.2,45,000/- along with the tender, but the
opposite party allotted the land @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., to Lalit, S/o
Ghanshyam Dass, by not allotting the land to the complainant despite of
said tender and when the complainant took action in this regard with
the opposite party, then the opposite party gave an order for
cancellation of allotment of land No.37 to Lalit, S/o. Ghanshaym Dass
vide letter No. 13 dated 02.01.2008, along with the Collector’s order
No.82/RTC/07dated 25.10.2007 and resolution of special meeting of
council No.118 dated 23.11.2007. It is clear from this that the complainant
had submitted the tender with the opposite party @ Rs.250.50 per sq.ft.
Despite of this, Lalit, S/o Ghanshyam Dass was allotted the land No.37 @
Rs.196 per sq.ft., without participating in this tender and by doing this,
the opposite party, besides the
rendering of deficient service was negligent in
his duties.
12. When the complainant had submitted the tender for land @
Rs.250.50 per sq.ft., but after that the allotment of land illegally to any
other person @ Rs.196 per sq.ft., shows the corruption, besides the
negligence in duties by the opposite party and the opposite party had also
attempted to cause financial loss to the institution of public interest and
no information in respect of acceptance or rejection of his application for
land was given to a person of good intention who had given offer to
provide profit to the institution as per rule and he was devoid of right
information despite of repeated application given by him.
13. The opposite party had informed to the complainant through letter
dated 29.11.2007 that because of not receiving the note sheet after
opening the tender the information regarding acceptance or rejection of
tender could not be given. If the opposite party had allotted the land to
Lalit, S/o. Ghanshyam Dass, without tender, then the opposite party had
definitely managed to loss the tender file pertaining to complainant on the
fear of exposing of manipulation and irregularity done by the opposite
party. This type of activity shows the bad intention of opposite party and
it apparently seems that the
opposite party, intentionally, with an objective to gain other profits,
wanted to keep the
complainant, devoid of land”.
10. The State Commission also mentioned this fact, in para 6 of its order, as under :-
“On examining the matter, it is found that the tender submitted by the
respondent No.1/ complainant, was on the higher side and was only the
tender and by not accepting that, the appellant has rendered deficient
services and despite of making allotment of said land to other person, for
which, the respondent No.1 had submitted the tender, which was
cancelled by the appellant by order dated 27.11.2007, the intimation of
which, was sent to the Collector, Neemuch, through letter dated
01.04.2008, it appears that the said land can yet be allotted to the
respondent”.
11. The tender application, moved by the petitioner was rightly
dismissed by the State Commission. Moreover, this is a case of dispute between
two independent persons, it can be decided only
by the Civil Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and the
same is dismissed at the time of its admission.
..…………………..………J
(J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER
Petitioner submitted a plaint with application order 39 rule 1 & 2 of S 151 cpc for stay against the execution of above said order kindly guide weather the case is maintainable or not? can I submit a application order 7 rule 11 S 151 of cps to reject the plaint or any other action
Jeetender Gupta
(Expert) 18 May 2015
You can file O7R11. Also initiate execution proceedings at your end. And plead before court that objections must be actually filed in execution proceedings or by appealing NC order.
Anirudh
(Expert) 18 May 2015
O 7 Rule 11 application for what? How in your view this applies to the present case?
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 May 2015
CPC has no applicability in consumer forum proceedings.
One can file petition questioning the maintainability of a proceeding but certainly no petition under order 7 rule 11 of cpc can be filed in consumer forum or its appellate bodies.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 19 May 2015
Dear Sunil,
You are appearing for the revisionist or respondent? If petitioner side, you have the option to move to Supreme Court against impugned order.
Who and what for to file a suit?
However, O VII Rule 11 CPC is inapplicable, in any case, please revisit the provision.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate 
(Expert) 19 May 2015
The referred provisions of the author in my opinion will not be applicable, as rightly suggested by expert Dr. Vashista, relief can be sought through Supreme court or the petitioner can approach civil court for remedies, if at all any, available.
