JAGDEEP SINGH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 17.9.2003 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dismissing appeal against the order dated 14.12.2001 of a District Forum whereby objections preferred by the petitioner to the attachment of certain land in execution of the order in a complaint filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No. 2 were dismissed. Attached land was conveyed by Pratap Singh under the sale deeds dated 21.7.1990 and 17.6.1990 to the Agriculture Service Cooperative Society Soloh - respondent No. 2. Short submission advanced by Mr. Rajesh Gupta for petitioner/objector was that the attached land is co-parcenary property and petitioner being one of the co-parceners, is owner there of .It was pointed out that petitioner has also filed suit for declaration to the said effect before Sr. Sub-Judge, Una. Copy of plaint of that suit is placed at pages 79-83 on the paper book. Petitioner has further filed copies of plaint in the suit filed by Pratap Singh against respondent No.2 and Registrar, Cooperative Society, Shimla, judgment dismissing that suit dated 28.2.2001 and memo of appeal filed against that judgment by the LRs of Pratap Singh who died during the pendency of suit. To be noted that in said suit cancellation of two sale deeds dated 21.7.1990 and 17.6.1990 was sought by Pratap Singh on the ground of that those were obtained by playing fraud and were without consideration. One of the issues framed in suit was if the aforesaid two sale deeds were obtained by playing fraud and that issue was answered against Pratap Singh his LRs while dismissing the suit. It may be mentioned that aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner also impleading the LRs of Pratap Singh was filed much after attachment of land in execution proceedings. Respondent No.1 continues to be the owner of attached land on the strength of two sale deeds. Petitioner has to go a long way to prove that attached land forms part of co-parcenary property and he being a co-owner has share therein. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdictional under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1896. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.