H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REFERESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

----

FIRST APPEAL NO.192/2009

DATE OF DECISION: 9.7.2009.

In the matter of:



Sh. Ajay Vohra son of Sh. Nathu Ram, Resident of Vikas Nagar, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. MD Blue Peaks Floriculture Ltd. Gour pf Companies (i.e. Blue Peaks Deposit and Advances Ltd. Accord Plantation Ltd.

… …. Appellant/Judgment Debtor.



Versus



Ms Neelam Sharma wife of Sh. Gurcharan Sharma,

Resident of House No.41, Alley No.2, Middle Bazar, Shimla, H.P.

… … Respondent/Decree Holder.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd,), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? No



For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate,



For the Respondent:Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).





1. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties , we are of the view that this appeal is wholly misconceived.



2. Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellant, forcefully urged that the District Forum below was in error when it did not adjudicate upon the cross objections filed by his client in the execution. We specifically called upon Mr. Chauhan to satisfy us as to how the cross objections are maintainable in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Reason for making this specific query was that so far applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Foras under the Act is concerned, they are applicable to the limited extent. Above all, it is by now well settled proposition of law that they are not Civil Courts and are further not governed by the rules of procedure except as envisaged under Section 13 (4) to (7) of the Act. That being the position, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity because cross objections were not maintainable in the eyes of law as well as under the provisions of the Act. In the light of this legal position, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Nothing was brought to our notice on behalf of the appellant that the cross objections in proceedings were tenable either in law or on the basis of precedents. As such this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.



Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.



Office is directed to forthwith return the file to the District forum below who will proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.



Shimla,

July 9, 2009.



( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President





( Saroj Sharma )

Member





/BS/ ` ( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

Member