1 2025:CGHC:34517-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 396 of 2025 1 - Shri Arjun Prasad Dubey S/o Late Shri Gaya Prasad Dubey Aged About 79 Years R/o House No.-323, Union Bank Ki Baju Gali, Ganjpara, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.), Pin - 491335 ... Appellant versus 1 - President, Priyadarshini Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit 455 B, Priyadarshini Nagar. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Registrar Sahakari Samitiya (Paikeg), Vivekanand Complex, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Arjun Prasad Dubey, Appellant in person SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.22 10:27:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.07.2025 1. Heard Shri Arjun Prasad Dubey, appellant in person. 2. On 25.06.2025, we have passed the following order which is quoted herein below:- “Perusal of the Office note would show that the present appeal is not maintainable against the order of review passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21/04/2025. It transpires from the record that the appellant herein had earlier filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3803/2023 (Shri Arjun Prasad Dubey vs. President, Priyadarshini Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit) which was dismissed on 03/09/2024 by the learned Single Judge against which, the appellant had preferred a writ appeal bearing WA No. 788/2024 and the same was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27/11/2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a review petition bearing REVP No. 18/2025 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21/04/2025 holding that the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03/09/2024 in WPC No. 3803/2023 has merged against which he has preferred a writ appeal which was 3 dismissed on 27/11/2024, hence the present writ appeal is not maintainable. The petitioner in person has prayed some time to go through the objection which has been raised by the Registry of this Court regarding maintainability of the present writ appeal. In view of the above and considering the age of the petitioner in person who is stated to be aged about 79 years as per the affidavit filed by him, the matter is adjourned. The petitioner in person is at liberty to take assistance of the legal aid in the present matter if he is unable to understand the intricacy of law. Let the matter be listed on 21/07/2025. 3. As the review petitioner/appellant who has appeared in person, we had given him liberty to take the assistance of legal aid in the present matter, if he is unable to understand the intricacy of law. Today, the appellant in person has argued the matter himself and has not taken the assistance of legal aid, for which an option was given. 4. We have heard him patiently. 5. Earlier the appellant in person preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3803/2023 and sought for the following reliefs:- 4 "10.1 माननय उच्च न्ययलय, बिलसपुर (छ.ग.) स करद्ध प्रार्थन है बिक प्रार्थ वर्ष 2014 स 2019 तक माननय जिल उपुभो!क्त फो!रमा, रज्य उपुभो!क्त आय!ग, रयपुर, माननय हैई क!र्ट, बिलसपुर व रष्ट्रीय उपुभो!क्त आय!ग, नई दि*ल्ल मा, लगतर पु-च वर्ष/ तक पुशी *र पुशी उपुस्थि2त है!त रहै एव4 न्यय क5 आशी मा, कर तन लख खच है! गय। न्यय प्राप्त नहै9 कर पुय। उपुर!क्त करण प्रार्थ क! न9* क5 कमा, अबिनद्रा, प्राकरण क र मा, र! ख्यल आन, मानसिसक तनव क करण दि*न4क 24.08.2022 क! च सड़क मा, दुर्घर्टन ग्रस्त है! गय। Dय पुर क5 हैड्डी एड़ क उपुर स र्टFर्ट गय एव4 तन चGर्थई स ज्य* पुर कर्ट गय। ख्मा अभो तक भोर नहै9 है आव*क नर स कमा!र, *!नH आ4खH मा, ल,स व शीगर पुबिड़त है। प्रार्थ 76½ वर्षय वIद्ध है। अतएव क्षबित क रूपु मा, पु-च लख मावव हैत आ*शी पुरिरत करन क5 *य कर,ग। 10.2 प्रार्थ क प्लर्ट ( कI बिर्ष भोFमिमा) क! अनव*क क. 1 न च डाल है, अतएव National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Revision Petition No. 830 of 2009 Dated 4th July 2012 ORDER H'ble Justice, J. M. Malik 5 (8) If the sale deed has been executed in favour of any other person that Sale Deed must have been produced. The Petitioner is playing the game of hide and seek. It can not wriggle out of its Liability after accepting the entire Price for a Plot. The Price of the Land has increased by leaps and bounds. It is well said that Justice delayed is not only Justice denied, it is also Justice Circumvented. Justice mocked and the system of Justice undermined. (9) As the case may be as compensation be paid to the complaint which would be equivalent to the Price of Land fixed by the collector for the said area (Tikra para, Rajendra Nagar) in the Year, माननय उच्च न्ययलय स प्रार्थन है बिक प्रार्थ क! भो आपुक आ*शी दि*न4क स कलक्र्टर *र पुर मावव पुरिरत करन क5 *य कर,ग। अनव*कH क उपुर क5 उपुर!क्त धारओं क तहैत कयवहै।" 6. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 03.09.2024 observing as under:- “13. From the above it is clear that the provision regarding limitation period contained in Section 24A of the Act of 1986 being of mandatory nature, all the three forums i.e. District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, was duty bound to determine 6 whether the complaint is within the limitation period. Once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. 14. In the instant case, the State Commission affirmed the order passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint being time barred, recording that pursuant to order of the Deputy Registrar, vide letter dated 29.7.1991 respondent No.1 forwarded a cheque towards amount of sale to petitioner, hence, the cause of action, for the first time, to file complaint accrued on the date when petitioner received back cheque of amount paid by him to respondent No.1 towards allotment of plot and development charges. The limitation, thus, began to run from 29.7.1991 and complaint ought to have been filed within two years therefrom which in fact was not done as the complaint was filed much thereafter i.e. on 6.5.2014. The learned State Commission further observed that even presuming that there was continuous cause of action running against respondent No.1, petitioner did not file complaint within the period of two years from notice dated 14.8.2010 by which he called upon respondent No.1 to execute and register sale deed in his favour. Thus the complaint was apparently barred by limitation. 15. The National Commission also dismissed revision observing that both the Forums were right in observing that actual cause of action had arisen only in the year 1991 when the respondent No.1 returned money to 7 petitioner in compliance of the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, (Package) Raipur. No amount of further correspondence can extend the period of limitation which is to be counted from the date of correspondence. Concurrent findings given by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are based on appreciation of material available on record, cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision. 16. From the above, it is apparent that upon consideration of the material placed before them, all the three forums have found that petitioner filed the complaint with inordinate delay and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay, hence, no fault could be found with the impugned orders. 17. So far as nature of relief claimed by petitioner in this writ petition i.e. grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferance, is concerned, in the opinion of this Court said relief cannot be adjudicated and granted in writ proceeding. Compensation can be calculated based on the evidence to be produced by respective parties and in absence thereof, no sum of compensation or damages could be granted by this Court. Evidence could be recorded only in the civil proceedings on filing appropriate suit for damages/ compensation. 18. For the above reason, no relief of compensation can be granted in this petition. Accordingly, the prayer for compensation is rejected. However, petitioner will be at 8 liberty to avail other civil remedy available under law, if permissible. 19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed” 7. Against the said order the appellant in person filed writ appeal no. 788/2024, the said writ appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 observing as under:- “11. From perusal of the impugned order, materials available on record, it transpires that the State Commission affirmed the order passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint being time barred, recording that pursuant to order of the Deputy Registrar, vide letter dated 29.7.1991 respondent No.1 forwarded a cheque towards amount of sale to petitioner, hence, the cause of action, for the first time, to file complaint accrued on the date when petitioner received back cheque of amount paid by him to respondent No.1 towards allotment of plot and development charges. The limitation, thus, began to run from 29.7.1991 and complaint ought to have been filed within two years therefrom which in fact was not done as the complaint was filed much thereafter i.e. on 6.5.2014. The learned State Commission further observed that even presuming that there was continuous cause of action running against respondent No.1, petitioner did not file complaint within the period of two years from notice dated 14.8.2010 by which he called upon respondent No.1 to 9 execute and register sale deed in his favour. Thus the complaint was apparently barred by limitation. The National Commission also dismissed revision observing that both the Forums were right in observing that actual cause of action had arisen only in the year 1991 when the respondent No.1 returned money to petitioner in compliance of the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative No amount of further Societies, (Package) Raipur. correspondence can extend the period of limitation which is to be counted from the date of correspondence. Concurrent findings given by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are based on appreciation of material available on record, cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision. 12. The learned Single Judge considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case has come to the conclusion that it is apparent that upon consideration of the material placed before them, all the three forums have found that petitioner filed the complaint with inordinate delay and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay, hence, no fault could be found with the impugned orders. 13. So far as nature of relief claimed by petitioner in this writ petition i.e. grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferance, is concerned, the learned Single Judge is of the considered opinion that said relief cannot be adjudicated and granted in writ proceeding. 10 Compensation can be calculated based on the evidence to be produced by respective parties and in absence thereof, no sum of compensation or damages could be granted by this Court. Evidence could be recorded only in the civil proceedings on filing appropriate suit for damages/compensation. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 8. Despite rejection of the writ appeal, he preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge bearing review no. 18/2025 which was dismissed by order dated 21.04.2025 holding that the review petitioner (appellant herein) failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 03.09.2024 (WPC No. 3803/2023) and further the order sought to be reviewed in merged with the appellate order passed in writ appeal ( W.A. No. 788/2024). 11 9. We have posed a question to the appellant in person about the said fact, but instead of answering the query of the Court, in respect to the maintainability of the present Writ Appeal which was also quoted/noted by the registry which is appearing from the cause list, he is unable to answer the query and has tried to argue the matter a fresh on merit, which cannot be permitted. 10. Accordingly, the writ Appeal is rejected as not maintainable. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Amardeep