IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29135 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. MIR REALTORS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT MM BUILDING,KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682 018.REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. ARUN KUMAR K. 2. ARUN KUMAR .K, S/O LATE AK RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR MIR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,MM BUILDING, KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. BAJI KOSHY THOMAS, S/O THOMAS KOSHY, THUNDIKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THUMPAMON P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 502. 2. SAMSON T GEORGE, THANNINIKKUNNATHIL EDAPARIYARAM DESOM,ELANTHOOR, KOZHENCHERY,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641. 3. THOMAS GEORGE, VALLIYIL HOUSE, PULLATTUKARA, KOYIPURAM,KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641. 4. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT, PIN-682 017. 5. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHATHUCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695 033. R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MUHANNED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 29135/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DTD. 18.08.2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD. 18.08.2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE LAND OWNERS AND THE IST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE EMAIL MESSAGE DTD. 22.01.2009 SENT BY THE IST PETITIONER INTIMATING THE IST RESPONDENT REGARDING THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE FOR COMPLETING THE REGISTRATION. P4: COPY OF THE EMAIL MESSAGE DTD.12.03.2009 SENT BY IST REQUESTING THE PETITIONERS TO DELAY THE REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS. P5: COPY OF THE EMAIL MESSAGE DTD. 19.12.2009 SENT BY THE IST RESPONDENT RREQUESTING TO DELAY THE REIGSTRATION BEYOND THE ANNUAL BUDGET 2010. P6: COPY OF THE CONSUMER COMPALINT NO. 216 OF 2011 DATED 17.03.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR INTERIM DIRECTION NUMBERED AS I.A. NO. 246 OF 2011 IN NO 216 OF 2011. P8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST IA NO.246 OF 2011 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.06.2011 P9: COPY OF THE DETAILED VERSION DTD. 09.08.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EXT P6 COMPLAINT. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13.06.2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN EXT P8 APPLICATION. P11: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION NO. 44/2011 DATED 5.08.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P12: COPY OF HTE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 24.08.2011 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 44/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29135 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The First respondent filed a complaint before the 4th respondent alleging deficiency of service on the part of the petitioners in executing the document pertaining to a flat he had booked with them. In that complaint Ext.P10 interim order was passed directing that on remittance of Rs.2,41,757/- the flat specified in the agreement shall be delivered and that a sale deed shall be executed. Against this order the petitioners filed a revision before the 5th respondent in which Ext.P12 order has been passed, dismissing the same. It is challenging these proceedings this writ petition is filed. 2. Admittedly the order passed by the 4th respondent is an interlocutory order and is subject to the final decision to be taken in the proceedings and therefore at this stage it is unnecessary for this court to consider the W.P.(C) No. 29135 OF 2011 :2 : merits of it. 3. However the counsel for the petitioners mainly took objection to one sentence in Ext.P12 order which reads as under: “In view of the fact that there is evident delay in handing over the flat i.e more than 2 years the direction of Forum in this regard cannot be found fault with.” 4. According to him this observation has the effect of a final determination of the dispute and therefore will cause prejudice to the petitioners. However a reading of the order in its entirety gives me the impression that the Commissioner was only recording the fact of delay in the matter and was not entering into a finding as apprehended by the learned counsel. Therefore the aforesaid sentence need not be of any prejudice to the petitioners. W.P.(C) No. 29135 OF 2011 :3 : 5. Counsel for the petitioners prayed that the amount deposited by the first respondent may be ordered to be released to the petitioners. It is submitted that for that purpose an application has already been made. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of clarifying that necessary orders will be passed on the application made by the petitioners for releasing the amount deposited by the 1st respondent. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge