CHANAKYA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. SWATI SHREENIWAS VATHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Satara below Exh. 1 in Execution Case No. 78/2007 the judgment debtor has filed this appeal.

(2.) ADMITTED facts are Sou. Swati Shriniwas Wathare, respondent/org. complainant had filed consumer complaint against M/s. Chankya Constructions of Satara with five other persons. The said complaint was decided on 30.4.2007 on merits. The Forum below rejected the complaint as against O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 but allowed the complaint against O.P. No. 1 and directed O.P.No.1 to refund amount of Rs. 6,85,000 to the complainant within 30 days and allowed O.P.No.1 even to sell flat No. 1 to anybody. This order came to be passed on 30.4.2007. In due course, since no compliance was made by O.P.No.1, the complainant filed Execution No. 78/2007 for execution. Notice was sent to the O.P. No. 1/judgment debtor. He attended the proceeding but did not comply with the order. Then application at Exh. 14 was moved by the complainant to issue warrant. Say was obtained from O.P. No. 1 (J.D.) Thereafter, after hearing both the parties, the Forum below passed impugned order below Exh. 1 and directed issuance of bailable warrant against J.D. aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed by the original O.P. No. 1.

(3.) IN this appeal we are concerned with the legality of the order passed below Exh.1 dated 14.11.2007. We heard submissions of Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. U.P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the respondent. We are finding that the Forum below lavishly gave all the opportunity to the J.D. to comply with the order passed by it in favour of the decree holder. But on one or other pretext the J.D./appellant herein did not bother to comply with the said order. He even did not prefer appeal against the original award passed against him on 30.4.2007 in Consumer Complaint No. 211/2006. So, the said award became final. As such there is nothing on record to suggest that the order passed by the Forum below Exh. 1 in E.A. No. 78/2007 is erroneous or bad in law. We are finding that impugned order passed by the District Forum is just, proper and sustainable in law. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass following order.