STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No. RP/24/126 (Arisen out of Order dated 09/07/2024 in CC/66/2024 passed by the District Commission, Mumbai Suburban Additional)

Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Through Chief Executive Officer, Administrative Building, Prof. Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. …….. Applicant /

Petitioner Vs.

1) Mr Abdul Aziz Allauddin Kabiraj Having address at – Plot no. 1-J-1, Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai – 400043.

2) M/s Tuli Builders, Through its Proprietor, Having Office at – 203, A wing, Gurudev CHS, Opp. MTNL, Chembur, Mumbai – 400071.

AND Alternative Residential Address at :

A-6, Indu Park, N. Datta Marg, Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400058.

3) M/s. Cityline Builders & Deverlopers, Through its Proprietor Having Office at – 801, 8th floor, Glameent, Central Avenue, Opp. OLPS Church, Chembur, Mumbai – 400071.

4) Chembur Paralkarwadi CHS Ltd., Through its Chairman / Secretary, Having Office at – Chembur Naka, R.C. Marg, Chembur. Mumbai – 400071. ……… Respondents BEFORE Justice S. P.Tavade – Hon’ble President Vijay C. Premchandani – Hon’ble Member For the petitioner(s) : Adv. Nishigandh Patil For Respondent no. 1 : Adv. U.B. Wavikar, Adv. Sajira Jondhale For Respondent no. 2 : None present Respondent nos. 3 & 4 : deleted

ORDER

(07/04/2026)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani – Member

1. The revision petitioner has filed this Revision Petition challenging the impugned order dated 07/05/2024 and impugned order dated 09/07/2024. It is contended that Respondent no 1 as a original Complainant has filed Original Consumer Complaint no 66/2024 before Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional. It is contended that the original Complainant and Respondent no. 2 were agreed to sale the flat to the Complainant. It is alleged that the original Complainant had made part payment to Respondent no 2 towards part payment of consideration. Since the Complainant did not get the flat as per the Agreement of Sale, he filed the original Consumer Complaint no 66/2024 before Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional.

2. It is further contended that the notice was issued to the Respondent on 07/05/2024 which was returnable on 09/07/2024. The applicant office has received notice on 27/05/2024 and it has instructed to the advocate of opponent to appear in the original Consumer Complaint. However, since the time to file the reply has expired as on 26/06/2024 the reply could not be filed by the Opponent. The District Commission on 09/07/2024 had passed an ex-parte order against the present Petitioner / Org. Opponent. It is further contended that in the Revision Petition that, the advocate on record Nishigandh Patil was instructed to appear before the Ld. District Commission, but due to some difficulty he had instructed his junior Anjali Kotecha to attend the case but she failed to appear before the District Commission. It is further contended that as per Section 42 of Maharashtra Slums Act “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the competent Authority or Against any person acting under its authority for anything which is in Good faith done or intended to be done under this act or the rules made thereunder” and a concerned junior has annexed the letter that she did not keep follow up due to medical reason. Therefore, due to difficulty of advocate to appear before the District Commission, the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 was passed, which required to be set aside. Hence the present Petition is filed. It is prayed by the Petitioner to set aside the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 passed by the District Commission.

3. The notice was issued to respondent 1 & 2 and respondent nos. 1 & 2 appeared. The petitioner has moved an application for deleting Respondent nos. 3 & 4. The said application was allowed. After hearing both sides and perusal of the present petition and