IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court may allow such evidence/ documents to be produced which could not after exercise of due diligence be produced by both the parties at the time of decree passed against him.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.10.2016 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.610 of 2006.

2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the petitioners/ OP Nos.1 to 6 are the absolute owners of the house property situated at Modi No.3. The petitioners/ OP nos. 1 to 6 entered into an agreement for the development of the above land with the petitioners/ OP Nos. 8 and 9. The respondent had booked shop Nos. 1, 10 and 11 in the proposed scheme for a total consideration of Rs.13,53,100/- As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the respondent had paid Rs.10 lakh to the petitioners. It was agreed that the petitioners shall execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent after delivery and possession of the shop block.

3. The respondent alleges that the construction work was not progressing till 2001. He met the petitioners often and requested them to hand over the possession and to execute the sale deed in his favour. The petitioners, however, gave him only false assurances. Till date the petitioners had not handed over the possession of the shop block to the respondent and sale deed was also not executed, even though the respondent had paid 75% amount at the time of booking itself. Hence, the respondent had filed this complaint claiming execution of sale deed of the shop block in his favour and handing over the possession of the shop block. He has also claimed interest on a sum of Rs.10 lakh which he had paid to the petitioners @ 18%.

4. Notice of the proceedings was served on the petitioners and they filed their reply to the present complaint. The petitioners/OP No.1 to 4 and 6 are the landlords, who in their reply admitted that they are the owners of the land/ property mentioned by the respondent. The petitioners stated that petitioner no. 5 expired prior to the institution of the present complaint.

5. They agreed that they had entered into an agreement with the Petitioners/ OP nos. 8 and 9 on 10.06.1993 but it was not duly stamped and therefore, it has no legal evidential value. They have denied that the respondent was a consumer. They have also denied that the respondent had paid Rs.10 lakh to them and that he had booked the shop blocks. In all they have denied all the allegations in the complaint. They have also denied any agreement and contract between the respondent for shop blocks.

6. The petitioners/ OP nos. 6 and 7 denied that the respondent was a consumer but they agreed that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.10 lakh to the petitioner/ OP no. 8 but the above amount was received by the petitioner/ OP no. 8 as a hand loan and not towards consideration for booking of shop block. Against the above hand loan the petitioner/ OP no. 8 had executed a security document and the same was not to be acted upon. They further submitted that they had refunded back the amount of Rs.10 lakh and as such there was no cause of action for filing of this complaint. All other allegations were denied by petitioners/ OP Nos.7 and 8.

7. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 15.02.2006 while allowing the complaint observed as under:

“The opposite party nos. 7 and 8 submits that they have refunded back the amount of Rs.10 lakh. They have also denied that the amount of Rs.10 lakh was accepted by them towards consideration for booking of shop block. As per the opposite party nos. 7 and 8 it was a hand loan and they have refunded back the above amount, but nothing is placed on record by OP nos. 7 and 8 to show that the above amount is refunded back to the complainant neither any receipt nor any acknowledgment nor bank statement, neither the agreement between the parties is cancelled by the opposite parties and the complainant is holding the original copy of the agreement. In absence of any doc