' SHAHID MUBEEN, J. -- The petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 praying therein that the complaint be dismissed being false with special costs.
This application was dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2015.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent No, 2 filed a complaint under Section 25 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, against respondent No,
3. This application was contested by respondent No, 3 by filing reply to the same. The evidence of the petitioner has been completed and the case has been fixed for recording of evidence of respondent No,
3. The petitioner moved an application under Section 4 of. Punjab Consumer Prosecution Act, 2005 for the dismissal of the complaint o1 in alternate for the rejection of the complaint. This application was duly contested by the respondent No,
2. Learned District Consumer Court, Lahore vide impugned order dated 7.7.2015 dismissed the application subject to payment of cost of Rs, 5,000/-.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in fact he has filed an application for impleadment as party in the complaint. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the complaint is barred by limitation same has been filed after 30 days according to Section 28(4) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The applicant is neither service provider nor manufacturer according to Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, hence, same is not maintainable as no notice under Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 has served upon the petitioner.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. From the bare perusal of the application, it reveals that petitioner in his application under Section 4 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 has prayed for the dismissal or rejection of the complaint and not for impleading himself as party. The evidence of respondent No, 2 has been completed and case is fixed for recording of evidence of respondent No, 3 for which last opportunity was granted. It appears that the application has been filed with male fide intention just to prolong the proceedings. The application appears to be false, frivolous and imposition of cost of Rs, 5,000/- is justified.
6. From the contents of the complaint the same appears within time as has been fully described by the learned District Consumer Court, Lahore is the said impugned order. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been fully discussed by the Court. The petitioner may file application for impleadment as party.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no merits and dismissed with no orders as costs.