STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No. RP/25/50 (Against the Order dated 05/03/2025 in RBT/CC/19/44 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Central Mumbai)

With SC/27/IA/272/2025 Ekdanta Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director, Mr. Rajesh Mutha, C wing – 106, Building no 66, Dhananjay CHS Ltd., Tilaknagar, Chembur (East), Mumbai – 400089. …….. Revision Petitioner/

Vs.

1. Mrs. Vaishali Gangan, R/at – B - 503, Tilak Nagar, Bldg no. 66, Opp. BMC School, Chembur (East), Mumbai – 400089. ……… Respondent no. 1/

Org. Complainant

2. Dhananjay Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Through its Secretary, Tilak Nagar, Bldg no. 66, Opp. BMC School, Chembur (East), Mumbai – 400089. ……… Respondent no. 2

3. M/s. Khushi Developers Pvt Ltd., Through its Director, Smt. Sujata Rajendra Nikalje, L3/17, Vrindavan Colony, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400089. ……… Respondent no. 3 BEFORE Justice S. P.Tavade – Hon’ble President Vijay C. Premchandani – Hon’ble Member Appearance:- For the Petitioner(s): Adv. Poonam Makhijani For Respondent no. 1 / Org. Complainant: Adv. Warunjikar, Adv. Kharkar None present for Respondent no. 2. For Respondent no 3: Adv. Thakare

ORDER

(07/04/2026)

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

1. The present Revision Petition has filed under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 05/03/2025 passed by Ld. District Commission Central Mumbai.

Facts of the Application :-

2. The Applicant submitted that, there is an application pending in Original Consumer Complaint pertaining to the maintainability of the complaint on the point of jurisdiction. In support of the application the present Petitioner has moved an application for production of documents along with copy of Occupation Certificate dated 08/01/2025 before District Commission. The Ld. District Commission adjourned the matter for filing a reply to the application and for hearing on said application. The Petitioner requested that directions be issued to Respondent no 1 to serve an advance copy of the reply, but Respondent no 1 failed to serve the copy of reply in advance to the present Petitioner and filed its reply before District Commission on 05/03/2025. The advocate for Petitioner requested District Commission to grant time for preparation of arguments on the application. However, the District Commission has allowed the application and orally stated to the advocate of the Petitioner that, arguments were not necessary. The present Petitioner has not given chance for hearing on the application for production of documents and also without issuing any directions to the parties to file their replies to the additional documents or evidence. The District Commission did not clarify whether the additional documents would be treated as additional evidence. Furthermore, the Hon’ble District Commission proceeded with final hearing by concluding the arguments of the Complainants’ Advocate and listed the matter as part-heard for the arguments of the Petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved with the said order the present Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order of District Commission. It is contended by the Petitioner that, the Petitioner has given last opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of additional documents placed on the record. The impugned order passed by the District Commission is without reason. Therefore, the Petitioner prayed that, the impugned order dated 05/03/2025 passed by the District Commission may modify and allow the Petitioner to file Additional Affidavit in Evidence in support of additional documents.

4. The notice of petition was issued to Respondents. The Original Complainant appeared and filed its reply. The Respondent no 1 has objected the petition and contended that the impugned order passed by Ld. District Commission is proper as the application for production of documents was allowed. There is no adverse order passed against the Petit