1. Madhu V.N., A-204, Kesav Srushti C.H.S., New Link Road, Chincholi, Malad Dely, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 064

2. Lekha Madhu Nair, A-204, Kesav Srushti C.H.S., New Link Road, Chincholi, Malad Dely, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 064

3. Deepak Madhu Nair, A-204, Kesav Srushti C.H.S., New Link Road, Chincholi, Malad Dely, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 064 (by Adv. V.R. Swaminathan)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C.No.798/2024 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainants filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties in connection with the construction of a villa. During the pendency of the complaint before the District Commission, the complainants filed I.A.No.296/2025, praying for permitting the complainants to complete the construction. The District Commission, as per order dated 04.06.2025, allowed I.A.No.296/2025, against which this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

4. It is not disputed that the construction is not yet complete. The complainants have prayed for permitting them to complete the construction of the villa. The opposite parties alleged that the construction was not completed as the payment was not made by the complainants. To show the present situation of the villa, including the extent of construction, there is a report submitted by the expert appointed by the District Commission on the request of the complainants.

5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners before this Commission is that if the construction is permitted to be completed, some of the materials kept in the premises of the complainants will be utilised by the complainants for the construction. However, no such contention was taken by the revision petitioners in the counter filed by the revision petitioners before the District Commission. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to issue any direction to that effect. However, since the construction is not complete, there is no harm in permitting the complainants to complete the construction, particularly when the extent of construction made by the opposite parties is available on record, as we have already mentioned above. In view of the above, the order passed by the District Commission, permitting the complainants to complete the construction work of the villa, does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness, warranting interference by this Commission.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER SL/jb ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT ..................

SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................J SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER