w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Prakash Chandra Jain v/s Director, Danish Grih Nir Sanstha MYDT

Company & Directors' Information:- DANISH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200RJ1985PTC003346

Company & Directors' Information:- B A JAIN & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21014WB1997PTC083658

Company & Directors' Information:- N S JAIN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909MH1997PTC112719

Company & Directors' Information:- V K JAIN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055478

Company & Directors' Information:- H. V. JAIN & CO PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74140MH2009PTC189774

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CHANDRA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36911WB1989PTC046753

Company & Directors' Information:- JAIN AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921UP1925PTC000288

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

Company & Directors' Information:- H C CHANDRA & CO. PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20231WB1957PTC023337

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAKASH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1938PTC009417

Company & Directors' Information:- CHANDRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74999KL1952PTC000280

Company & Directors' Information:- S PRAKASH AND COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1938PTC002840

Company & Directors' Information:- R. CHANDRA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1953PLC009175

    Rev. Petition No. 21 of 2019

    Decided On, 13 January 2020

    At, Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Rajeev Jain, Learned Counsel. For the Respondent: Devendra Sahu, Learned Counsel.

Judgment Text

Shantanu S. Kemkar, President

1. Parties through counsel. Heard.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal, (for short ‘Forum’) in complaint case no.788/15, whereby the Forum has rejected the application for amendment filed by the petitioner / complainant on the ground that the same has been filed at a belated stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant submits that the application was filed on the basis of subsequent events. In the circumstances, in order to bring subsequent events on record it became necessary to file amendment application.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / opposite party has supported the impugned order.

5. On going through the facts stated in the application it appears that on 22.03.2017 when the appellant / complainant went to the site he found that few houses were demolished and process of demolition of some houses was going on. In the circumstances, the application was filed.

6. Thus having gone through the application, it seems that the application for amendment was filed to bring the subsequent events on record which appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case.

7. As a result, we allow the application. The appellant / complainant is directed to carry out the amendment in the complaint within two weeks from the date of appearance before the Fo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rum. The respondent may carry out consequential amendment in the reply within two weeks thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 26.02.2020.