SHAMIK RAHA Vs. PUSPA ASHOKA CHANDRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against the order no.2 dated July 19, 2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in R. P. Case No.75 of 2010 thereby dismissing the revisional application preferred by the petitioner with regard to the execution proceeding no.74 of 2009.

(2.) The short fact is that the opposite party filed a complaint before the learned District Forum, Alipore being the C.C. Case No.107 of 2008 stating, inter alia, that on the basis of a verbal agreement, the opposite party booked a flat measuring 650 square feet on the first floor at premises no.176/14/142, Raipur Road, Kolkata 700 092 being the flat no.1A at a total consideration price of Rs.5,00,000/- only. The said consideration money was paid. But the judgment debtor / petitioner herein, did not deliver possession of the flat and also did not execute the deed of conveyance. So, he filed the complaint before the forum. That matter went from the consumer forum to State Commission, then National Commission and ultimately to the Apex Court and everywhere the decree/order passed against the judgment debtor, petitioner herein, has been confirmed. The judgment debtor did not comply with the said decree/order and as such, execution application was filed for execution of the decree/order. In that application, the judgment debtor filed an application for cancelling the application for execution of the decree. That application was dismissed on contest by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, he filed a revisional application before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (henceforth shall be called as State Commission). By the order impugned, the learned commission has rejected the revisional application. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the judgment debtor.

(3.) Mr. Guha Thakurata, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a single petition for execution under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Moreover, the decreeholder had obtained the decree by practising fraud upon the Court before the District Consumer Forum and so the decree should not be executed.