ORDER

1.       In these two appeals Shri Swarjeet Sagi and Shri Kashya Dhruv are the sons in law of Mr. Sunil J. Sachdev, who is the managing partner of M/s. Gharonda Builders and Developers and Smt. Meenal Dhruv is the daughter of Sunil J. Sachdev. The contention of all these three persons are that the impugned orders of the State Commission dated 27.01.2021 in these appeals arising out of complaint no. 56 of 2015 and 50 of 2015, works great injustice, in as much as, they are neither partners of the developer/ builder firm, M/s. Gharonda Builders and Developers, nor they are even remotely connected with it and as such they were incorrectly arrayed as opposite parties in the complaint. They are nowhere liable for any deficiencies alleged against the Builder/ Developer. However, the appellants did not appear before the State Commission and in the absence of any written version being filed on their behalf, their right to file a written version was forfeited. They moved an application seeking to set aside the ex parte order, which was dismissed on 08.01.2019. An appeal was filed before this Commission against the said order, which was also dismissed on the ground of being barred by time.  

2.       The appellants then moved IA/723/2019 in CC/50/2015 and a similar application was filed in the connected matter. A copy of the application no. 723 of 2019 has been filed on record and the affidavit filed in support thereof dated 04.06.2019 is extracted herein under:

“AFFIDAVIT

    I, Sunil J Sachdev, S/o. Late Jayanthilal Sachdev, aged about 61 years, Occ: Business and Managing Partner of OP1, R/o 4-4-932/1 to 3, Kandaswamy Lane, Opp. Hanuman Vyayamashala, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad-500 095, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

It is therefore prayed that, the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to reopen the evidence of the Opposite parties for the purpose of receiving the Partnership deeds pertaining to the Opposite Party no.1 and mark them as exhibits in support of the Opposite party no.1 & 2’s contentions and pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

3.       Through the application filed accompanying the said affidavit a prayer was made to allow the partnership deeds pertaining to the firm M/s. Gharonda Builders and Developers to be brought on record to demonstrate that the appellants had absolutely no concern with the reliefs sought for in the complaint as they were neither partners and nor had anything to do with the development being made by M/s. Gharonda Builders and Developers.

4.       The counter to the said application was filed by the complainants, which is extracted herein under:

“COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1

    I, D. Srinivas S/o D. K. Rajum aged about 48 years, Occ: Service, R/o Hyderabad, do hereby state on oath as follows:

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the petition of the Petitioner with exemplary costs and pass such other further or other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ”

5.       The aforesaid contest was decided by the State Commission on 14.10.2019 by the following order:

“This Interlocutory application is filed by the Petitioners/Opposite parties 1 and 2 seeking to re-open the evidence of Opposite parties for the purpose of receiving the Partnership deeds pertaining to Opposite party No.1 and mark them as exhibits in support of the Opposite parties 1 and 2's contentions.

2) It is contended by the Petitioners that except Respondent No.5, Respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 were never the partners of the firm and have not participated in any of the transactions allegedly took place between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.1. Only with mala fide intention to thrust undue pressure and coerce the Petitioner No.2, the Respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 were made as parties to the complaint and to establish the same, the Partnership deeds be received on record and marked as e