MONIKA KAHALI Vs. ASTIK MONI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against the order dated October 1, 2007 passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission") in Execution Case No.13 of 2006 arising out of State Commission Case No.197/0/95.

(2.) The opposite party no.1 preferred an application under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being the State Commission Case No.197/0/95 praying for directing the respondents to hand over possession of a flat in question in favour of the petitioner, alternatively, for a direction upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.6,29,000/- and other consequential reliefs. In that complaint, by a majority decision of the State Commission, the opposite party no.1 was directed to negotiate for amicable settlement of the dispute by a mutual discussion with the respondent no.s 1 & 2 or may approach to the civil Court, if he so chooses for his remedy. Being aggrieved by such majority judgment, the opposite party no.1 preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission being First Appeal No.257 of 1996. The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated January 28, 2004 on the basis of a petition signed by Ashok Kumar Kahali, husband of the petitioner and filed by one Mr. Anjan Biswas. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for contempt of orders dated January 28, 2004 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. That application was withdrawn by the opposite party no.1 stating, inter alia, that she would be moving the Hon'ble State Commission under Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the said contempt application was dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) When the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Sections 25 & 27 of the said Act for enforcement of the orders, the petitioner herein filed an objection contending that the said application was not maintainable. That application was rejected on contest and the judgment debtors were directed to carry out the order of the Hon'ble National Commission dated January 28, 2004 without any further delay. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.