1. It is pertinent to note that matter was adjudicate upon on 11-2-10 by my learned predecessor Mr. Ejaz Ahmad Buttar that order was assailed before the Hon`ble High Court Lahore. His lord ship Mr. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed vides order dated 30-09-10 set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case for afresh adjudication. Vide order dated 30-9-2010 his lord ship has kindly directed that question of jurisdiction and limitation must be resolved. In view of the Court order of his lordship I firstly take the point of jurisdiction.
2. 2 In order to dispose of the point of jurisdiction I take opportunity to glance at the scheme of PCPA 2005 according to which only a consumer can entertain the powers of this Court. Definition of Consumer is given in Section 2 (c) which reads as under:- "Consumer" means a person or entiry who i) buys or obtain on lease any product for a consideration and includes any user of such product but does not include a person who obtains any product for resale or for any commercial purpose ; ii) hires any services for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services.
3. Anees Ahmad Malik V/s Eden Developers Pvt Ltd In the above said definition word "product" is very material which has been defined in Section 2 (J) according to which word product has been given the same meaning as assigned word "good" in the Sale of Goods Act 1930.
4. 3 According to Sale of Goods Act 1930 goods have been defined in the way "goods meaning every kind of movable property other than action able claims and money" and includes stocks and shares, growing crops grass and things attached to or forming part of land which are agreed to served before sale or contract of sale" .Thus according to scheme of PCPA 2005 a consumer should have obtained product and the product should have not been purchased for any commercial purpose.
5. 4 Keeping in view these definitions I take opportunity to analysis the contents raised in the complaint in hand. First of all I take body of the complaint that on 5-10-2002 the parties executed an agreement Ex-PW/1 to purchase a plot bearing no 200 (revised number 272) in Block A Eden City phase-1 Lahore for sum of Rs. 47,24000/- as per out of which the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.
6. 44,87000/-to the respondent whereas balance amount of Rs. 2,37,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of handing over the possession of plot within period of one year till 5-10-2003. Despite payment possession was not handed over within stipulated period. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint in hand and has asked for reimbursement of his amount and damages in the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-against the General Manager of Eden Developers Pvt Ltd. The question is whether conditions set up in PCPA 2005 is fulfill or not. According to Para Anees Ahmad Malik V/s Eden Developers Pvt Ltd 4 of the complaint the complainant had planned to rent out the said plot after taking the possession of the Plot and thereafter the construction of residential house. The complainant assumed to earn the rent of Rs. 30,000/-per month as rent. Similarly in Para 8 it is averred that complainant has invested a huge amount in the above said plot for the purpose of earning. Thus this stance speaks petitioner's purposes for which the petitioner had purchased the plot that is for commercial purposes. In order to elaborate this point I take the deposition made by the petitioner while appearing as PW-1 who has stated that agreement dated 5-10-2002 was executed between the parties and he made payment and possession of the plot was agreed to be handed over till August 2003.
7. 5 The cumulative effects of the above said discussion is that for the purpose of benefit of PCPA 2005 the subject matter should have been immovable property and use of that should not have been for commercial purposes. It is to note that RW-1 Abdul Majeed has clearly deposed on the same lines and has categorically stated in his examination in chief that said plot does not fall within the definition of a product. He has also claimed that complaint in hand is time barred. But on this point of jurisdiction and limitation the RW-1 has not been cross examined by the learned counsel of the complainant. I agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that facts not cross examined amounts to admission. Learned counsel for the respondent has only cited AIR 2000 Calcutta 80 In my view according the specific wording of the statute which prevails the shots of the Anees Ahmad Malik V/s Eden Developers Pvt Ltd above said discussion is that matter relates to the dispute of immoveable property and the claimant seeks possession of the plot as it clearly depicted in Para 12 of the Complaint, therefore, in my view, this Court has not jurisdiction to entertain the matter actually the matter relates to civil nature and civil Court is competent to adjudicate upon the matter.
8. 6 The next point is Limitation. In this respect I again rely the wording of Para 12 of the complaint according to which cause of action, firstly, accrued on 5-10-02 when the complainant entered into the agreement secondly on 5-10-03 when the respondent was unable to hand over the possession of the said plot and finally a few days ago when the respondent failed to hand over the possession of the said plot. From the wording of Para 12 of the complaint it is crystal clear that the complaint in hand has been filed just to recover the possession of the plot and false colour has been given only to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of this Court. Actually cause of action arose on 5-10-02 and lastly on 5-10-03 while the complaint in hand has been filed on 27-8-08. In this way, it is blatant time barred and this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Therefore, complaint in hand is returned to the petitioner for presentation at the proper forum. Parties are bears their own costs. After completion file be consigned to record room.