IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.

Revision Petition NO. 39/2022 Court No. 1

1. Satyaa Construction Through Proprietor Rajansingh M. Verma & Anr. …Petitioner Vs

1. Nileshkumar Sukhajirav Jadhav …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Ms. A.C.Raval, Member Apperence : Mr. Amit Patel for the petitioner Order by Hon’ble Ms. A.C. Raval, President

1. The Petitioner/ Original opponent has filed this revision petition under section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Ahmedabad (Rural) in miscellaneous application for production of document filed in C.C. No.175/2016.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel for the petitioner.

3. Fact of the case: The present petitioner is opponent in the CC No.175 of 2016 filed before the Learned District Commission by filing the application before the learned District Commission the petitioner sought production of certain documents by the complainant. The application for production of documents is rejected by the Learned District Commission vide order dated 09.09.2022 hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the order passed by the Learned District Commission dated 09.09.2022 in production application filed by the petitioner.

4. Argument of the applicant : The advocate of the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of COSMOS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs AHMED ALI MIRSAHEBMIYA SAIYED dated 2 August 2000 in Case No. 1566 of 1999 relying upon the aforesaid judgment, advocate for the petitioner argued that for deciding the consumer complaint on merits the documents sought in production application are must and necessary for deciding the dispute in the matter. Hence, the complainant must be directed to produce such documents on record.

4.1. The petitioner has sought production of construction progress report filed before the central bank of India in respect of complainant’s letter dated 18.10.2014, 01.01.2015, 03.03.2015 and 22.05.2015. Regarding possession of the progress report, complainant as well as opponent/petitioner filed the affidavits and rejoinder to the affidavit denying the possession of the said reports. In that case the observations made in para 9 in the case of COSMOS development (Supra) is necessary. It is mentioned it para9 that…

“If both the parties deny possession of the original document at the relevant time if any of the parties comes to the conclusion that the original document should be produced before the court. The Court has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and it has record its findings as to which of the party is in possession of the original document. At that stage, the Court on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties, the Court is required to pass appropriate order as to which of the party is in possession of the document and that document can be directed to be produced. Regarding the possession, the matter can only be decide on the basis of the affidavits as it is only incidental matter which is not required to be investigated and tired as a suit by leading the evidence.”

4.2 The court has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to record its findings on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. The petitioner has produced letters dated 18.10.2014, 01.01.2015, 03.03.2015 and 22.05.2015 on record. The complainant has requested the Central Bank to disburse the specific amount mentioned in the letter to the petitioner. The affidavits file by the both the parties and rejoinder are also produced on record but conveniently the petitioner has not produced the application dt.25/03/2021 made by the complainant to the Central Bank for providing documents under the RTI Act