RAJENDRA NARAYAN HOLKAR Vs. JMJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 25/1/2008 passed in Misc. application no.3/2008 arising out of Execution application no.E-38/2002. Misc.Application no.3/2008 has been decided by the Forum below on 25/1/2008. According to Ld.Counsel for the revision petitioner, he had filed Execution application no.38/2002. In that execution proceedings, he had prayed for issuance of warrant or initiation of Section 27 proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But the Ld. District Consumer Forum in its judicial wisdom thought it fit to direct decree holder initially to file section 25 proceedings and if he fails to recover any dues then to move under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Till then Execution application no.38/2002 was kept in abeyance. Against that order decree holder filed Appeal no.759/2005 in this Commission. Commission was pleased to allow the said appeal and quash the order under challenge and directed Forum to entertain application under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order was passed by this Commission on 15/10/2007. In the meantime, the Execution application no.38/2002, which was pending in the Forum below was disposed of for want of prosecution on 10/2/2006. After this Commission allowed the appeal, decree holder filed Misc.application no.3/2008 requesting the Forum below to initiate proceedings under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But the Ld. District Consumer Forum held that when execution petition stood disposed of for want of prosecution, unless that order is set aside or quashed and modified, it cannot entertain fresh execution proceedings for taking action under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is this order dated 25/1/2008, which has been taken strong exception of by filing this revision petition.

(2.) We heard Mr.Sanjay Gaikwad Advocate for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. They are duly served.

(3.) We have perused the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Execution petition has been disposed of for want of prosecution on 10/2/2006. This order on the face of it is patently illegal for the simple reason that this Commission in Appeal no.759/2005 allowed the appeal and directed Forum below to entertain an application filed by the decree holder under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After passage of this order by the Commission, he moved application Misc.application no.3/2008 and requested Ld. District Consumer Forum to initiate action under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by reviving execution application no.38/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Forum and on this application, impugned order came to be passed by the District Consumer Forum disposing of this application on the ground that unless the order passed by the District Consumer Forum disposing of execution petition for want of prosecution is set aside and quashed, it cannot revive the said application by Misc.application no.3/2008.