N.KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum.
(2.) The above appeal is filed as against the order passed in OP.No.516/2001 dt.19.11.2002 of the District Forum, wherein a direction is given, which is as follows: In the result, the opposite party is directed to provide proportionate undivided share of land to the complainant, after demolishing the 4th floor which was constructed illegally, with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance one month, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take proceedings for arrest of the opposite party under Sec.27 of CP Act.
(3.) The main grievances of the appellant is to the effect that when the complaint was pending before the District Forum, the complainant has approached the Honble High Court and there are several other subsequent developments including an order of Regularisation passed by the CMDA, and as such the District Forum ought not to have rendered any finding without looking in the subsequent events. In this connection, the learned senior counsel has pointed out that a petition in CMP No.322/2002 was filed to reopen the Original Petition, wherein a plea is raised to the effect that during the pendency of the complaint, the CMDA has passed an order on Regularisation of the alleged construction of 4th floor. According to the learned senior counsel, the petition was dismissed on 12.11.2002, by holding that the order was reserved in the main petition long back. Subsequently, according to the learned counsel, the District Forum has later on passed order in the main OP on 19.11.02, without rendering any finding on the averments raised in CMP.322/2002, more particularly the order passed by the CMDA, regularising the 4th floor by proceedings dt.5.6.2002. The learned counsel has also pointed out that on every occasion, subsequent orders were passed by the High Court, only at the instance of the complainant.;