(Delivered on  21/04/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1.         Petitioner/applicant Mangaldas Sadashiv Kamble   has  preferred  the present  Revision Petition  under Section 47-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging  order dated 01/10/2020  passed by the  learned District Consumer  Commission , Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/234/2020 whereby the application filed by the present revision petitioner - Mangaldas Kamble  for addition as  party respondent /O.P. came to be rejected. 

 2.        Short facts leading to  filing of  the Revision Petition may be narrated  as under,

            Complainant Mr. Sagar Aadmane had filed the consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that he is the owner of the plot No. 53 , Mouza Bhamti Parsodi, Khasara No. 77/1 and that he had purchased  the said plot  from Mr. Pradeep Kamble  on 12/01/2012.  Complainant  Mr. Sagar Aadmane  has further  alleged  in this Consumer Complaint  that  after purchasing  the plot bearing No. 53 when he started  construction  of  compound  wall at that time  some unknown  persons  all of sudden came on plot and  started  disturbing  his  possession.  The complainant  has alleged that  in fact  the O.P. namely  Magaswargiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur and their  persons had  disturbed  the possession of the  complainant  which was  already  handed over to him by his predecessor  in title – Pradeep  Kamble  on 12/01/2012. The complainant had alleged  deficiency  in service on the part of the  O.P.- Magaswargiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur  and so the complainant  filed the instant  Complaint. After the  filing of the complaint  notice came to be issued  to the O.P. and the matter was fixed  on 30/07/2020.  Petitioner Mr. Mangaldas Kamble has submitted that he came to  know  about the same  and found that  the respondent No. 1/complainant Mr. Sagar Aadmane  had filed  the complaint with   malafide intention  by  suppressing material  facts. Petitioner- Mr. Mangaldas Kamble  has taken a specific  plea that  in fact he was  absolute owner of the plot No. 53 namely the suit plot and had purchased  the same from O.P. Magaswargiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur  through its  President  Mr. Sagar Damduji Dhambare and the sale deed was also registered  before  Sub Registrar, Nagpur, bearing Registration No. 9032/1989. The petitioner has contended  that  since then he was in occupation  and possession  of the suit  plot bearing No. 53 but despite  this fact one Smt. Mamta Bodale  had filed  one suit  for Declaration and Perpetual Injunction  against   Mr. Pradeep Kamble  and  present  petitioner in the Court of the Joint  Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur bearing  R.C.S. No. 903/2001 and same is pending. Petitioner has contended that  on the basis of false and  fabricated  documents  the  respondent No. 1/ complainant  has obtained  R.L. letter  from the Nagpur Improvement Trust.  Petitioner- Mr. Mangaldas Kamble therefore, filed an application before the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur for intervention and for addition as O.P. However, the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur without  verifying  the original documents  rejected the said application  by passing the  impugned order  dated 01/10/2020 and also  fixed the matter  for final  order on 11/11/2020. It is against this order dated 01/10/2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur that the present petitioner has come up in present revision petition.

3.         We have heard Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner.  After hearing the petitioner the notice came to be issued to the respondents and respondent Nos. 1&2 both have appeared. We have also heard Mr. B.C. Pal, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1/complainant and Mr. Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. On the basis of the facts stated above  the  only point  which  arises  for our determination  is as  under  with  our findings recorded  against same and reasons  to follow: 

Reasons

4.         It is not  in dispute that  the respondent No. 1/complainant  Sagar Aadmane had filed  the  Consumer Complaint  bearing  No. 234/2020 against  the  respondent No. 2 Magaswargiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur  regarding  deficiency  in service  on the ground that  the  respondent No. 1/complainant  was lawful owner  of  suit plot No. 53 having purchased the same from one  Pradeep Kamble 12/01/2012.

5.         At the outset  it is submitted by  Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner  that the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not appreciated  the application filed by the petitioner  as well as the  documents  on record in proper perspective  and without  proper  application of mind has rejected  the application  for addition  of the  petitioner  as intervener and O.P.  Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner  has vehemently submitted before us that the respondent No. 1/complainant  Mr Sagar Aadmane was not at all lawful owner of the plot No. 53, Khasra No. 77/1 and in fact  the petitioner  Mr. Mangaldas Kamble  was the real owner  of Plot No. 53 having  purchased  the same from one Mr. Sagar Dambhare, who was the then President of Magaswargiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur. Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended before us that the petitioner had also placed on record a copy of sale deed which was duly registered before  Sub Registrar, Nagpur, bearing registration No. 9032/1989. According to Mr. Gabhane, learned  advocate for the petitioner the subsequent  sale deed executed in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 1 Sagar Aadmane  was nothing  but  illegal , forged and fabricated  document,  but this fact was not taken into consideration. According to  Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner  the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur had also not taken into consideration  the fact that  one Smt. Mamta Bodale  had  also filed  Civil Suit  for declaration and perpetual injunction  against  the  previous owner Mr. Pradeep Kamble  and same was pending before the learned Civil Judge. Sr. Dn., Nagpur bearing R.C.S. No. 903/2001. During the course of argument Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the various documents filed on record so as to support  his contentions.

6.         Mr. B.C. Pal, learned advocate  appearing for the respondent No. 1/complainant Sagar Aadmane has strongly rebutted  this contention and in support of the same  has also  placed reliance  upon several documents  but  before  dealing with the documents  filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant  Mr. Sagar Aadmane it would be appropriate  to deal with  the documents  filed by the petitioner Mr. Mangaldas Kamble.  The petitioner has placed on record one copy of sale deed  executed in his favour  in respect of plot No. 53 executed  by  Secretary, Magaswaregiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur. Further  petitioner  has also placed on record  one copy of Civil Suit filed by one Smt. Mamta  Bodale bearing  R.C.S. No.903/2001. On perusal  of the copy of this Civil Suit it is seen that  Smt. Mamta Bodale has claimed  that  she had purchased  the suit plot No. 53 along with the  old house  as per registered sale deed  dated 02/08/1986 for  valuable  consideration  of Rs. 85,000/- from the defendant Nos. 3&4- Smt. Fazalatnissa W/o Abdul Majid and Mr. Abdul Najibkhan S/o Abdul Majib Khan. It is an admitted  fact that  the said Civil Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 903/2001 is pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. Further a glance at the copy of Civil Suit also reveals that subject matter of said suit was also the ownership of plot No. 53 and Smt. Mamta Bodale has claimed possession over the said plot.   Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to other documents namely copy of certain letters written to Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and Nagpur Improvement Trust.

7.         On the other hand, the respondent No.1/complainant  has taken  a specific  plea that  one Mr. Bhhayaji Shelare  had executed  the registered sale deed  of plot No. 53 in favour of  Mr. Pradeep Kamble  on 23/01/1991 and physical  possession of  plot No. 53 was also  handed over to him. Respondent No. 1/complainant has contended that thereafter Mr. Pradeep Kamble sold  the plot No. 53 to him vide  registered sale deed  dated  12/01/2012. Not only this but the President of Magaswaregiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur had also issued No Objection Certificate vide letter dated 14/11/2011.  Mr. B.C. Pal, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1/complainant  has contended  before us  that nine  years had passed  since  execution of sale deed in favour  of the respondent No. 1/complainant  and  since then he was actual possession of plot . Further the respondent No. 1/complainant had also mutated his name on the property card of the plot No. 53 and copy of the same is also  filed on record.  Further Magaswaregiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur had also issued  No Objection  Certificate regarding  the possession of the complainant/respondent  No. 1 over the plot No. 53. In view of this submission made by Mr. B.C. Pal, learned advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant, we have also gone through the documents filed on record by the respondent No.1/complainant.  Respondent No.1/complainant- Mr. Sagar  Aadmane has already  filed on record  not only the copy of sale deed executed in his  favour by   the  Vendor Pradeep Kamble but also  a copy of tax receipt regarding  payment  of taxes to Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. Respondent No.1/complainant has filed copy of No Objection Certificate issued by Magaswaregiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur.  Respondent No. 1/complainant  has also placed on record  one copy of property  card to show that  the name of the respondent No. 1/complainant Mr. Sagar Aadmane is recorded  as owner of plot bearing No. 53. All these  documents  placed  on record by the respondent No. 1/complainant  only go to  point out that the respondent No. 1/complainant  was not only the lawful owner of the plot No. 53  but further  his  name was  duly  recorded  in the Record of Rights.

8.         Coming now back to the submissions and documents filed by petitioner- Mr. Mangaldas Kamble, Mr. Mangaldas Kamble  has placed  on record copy of sale deed  regarding  having  purchased  the  property  from  one  Sagar Dambhare in 1989. During the course of  hearing the petitioner  has also placed on record  one copy of Police Complaint  addressed  to  Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur as well as certain  letters  written  to Nagpur Municipal Corporation   by one   Mr. M.S. Karunakar. The petitioner has also filed one copy of order passed in M.A.No. 2/2014 by Co-operative Court, Nagpur so as to show that some disputes were pending.  On the basis  of the  documents earlier filed  on record   by the petitioner,  the petitioner – Mr. Mangaldas Kamble  has claimed  to be the  owner  on the basis  of sale deed executed  by Mr. Sagar Dambhare in 1989. The petitioner  himself  has placed on record  one copy of Civil Suit in  R.C.S. No. 903/2001 pending  in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at  Nagpur. From this document it is amply clear that  one Civil  dispute  is already  pending regarding  title  of  suit plot bearing  No. 53 but we are  of the clear opinion  that this dispute  relating  to title  can be resolved  only  in the Civil Court and not under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which  deals only  with  relationship  between Consumer and Service Provider.

9.         It is also  pertinent  to note that  the respondent No. 1/complainant  has filed  consumer dispute  against the respondent - Magaswaregiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur as regards the deficiency in service  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and so the  relationship between the respondent No. 1/complainant and the O.P.- Magaswaregiya Rail Karmachari Gruhanirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur is that  of Consumer  and Service Provider only and  does not  extend beyond  the same.  During the pendency of the said Consumer dispute the present petitioner has filed an application for addition of party. However, there is absolutely no material  on record to show that  the petitioner  had any connection  whatsoever  with the said Consumer dispute except that he claims to the previous owner of plot No. 53  about view  we have recorded earlier or that he was service provider.

10.       If we go through  the  impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur, we find that  the  learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has elaborately  dealt with  the submissions  made on behalf of the petitioner  and has also given a finding that  the  petitioner – Mangaldas Kamble was not  at all the service provider of the respondent No.1/complainant  and there was no relationship  of Consumer  and Service Provider with the  petitioner.  After giving  the said finding the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has reached  conclusion  that the application  filed by the petitioner  was not tenable  in law and  we do not find any material  to  disturb  or interfere  with the said  findings. We have already  pointed  out that    the dispute  relating  to the title  of the suit  property  Plot No. 53 can be sorted   out only  in  the Civil Court which  was Competent  Forum for the same and not before the District Consumer Commission, Nagpur the scope  of which  is restricted  to deficiency  in service  by   Service  Provider to Consumer.

11.       In the light of aforesaid  discussion, we are unable to accept  the contentions  advanced  by  Mr. Gabhane, learned advocate for the petitioner  that  the learned  District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not applied  its mind  to the documents  placed on record or has given  findings  which was erroneous  in nature.  On the other hand we are of the view that the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has elaborately dealt with the aspect and  the impugned order dated 01/10/2020 does not  warrant   any interference. As such we answer point No. 1 in negative and by way of sequel proceed to pass the following order.    

ORDER

i.          Revision petition is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Petitioner  to bear his own costs  as well as the costs of  respondent

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.