STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/5/2025 (Against the Order dated 15th May 2025 in Appeal DC/558/CC/350/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kasaragod)

WITH SC/32/IA/101/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

K MOHAMMED SALI PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O KHADER HAJI, R/AT KHADEJA MANZIL, NEAR N H 17, KUMBALA , KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus ABDUL KHADER K PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O M ABDULLA, R/AT M A MANZIL, NEAR NITHYANANDA MANDIR,, KUMBALA KOIPADY VILLAGE, P O KUMBALA,KASARAGOD,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 06/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No.05/2025 ORDER DATED : 06.01.2026 (Against the order in I.A.No.01/2025 in C.C.No.350/2023 on the files of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITHKUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

Abdul Khader, S/o Abdulla, M.A. Manzil, Near Railway Station, Mattakuzhy Road, Kumbala, Kasargod – 671 321 (by Adv. Arunbose & Adv. Rajesh Kumar C.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

K. Mohammed, S/o Khader Haji residing at Khadeeja Manzil, Near NH

17, Kumbala, Koyipady Village, Kasaragod

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.350/2023 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant filed I.A.No.01/2025 praying for appointing an expert to assess the construction cost of the building in dispute. The District Commission as per order dated 14.01.2025 allowed the said application, against which this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard. Perused the records.

4. It appears that the revision petitioner filed objection to I.A.No.01/2025.

However, the District Commission did not consider the objection before passing the order under revision. Since various grounds raised by the revision petitioner were not considered by the District Commission before passing the order under revision, it has to be held that the order under revision suffers from illegality, impropriety and incorrectness, warranting interference by this Commission.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, order dated 14.01.2025 in I.A.No.01/2025 in C.C.No.350/2025 stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to consider I.A.No.01/2025 afresh, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides of being heard. Needless to state that in case the District Commission allows I.A.No.01/2025, the District Commission shall appoint an expert from the panel to be submitted by both sides.

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

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

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