MAHABIR SINGH DESWAL Vs. ARORA HANDLOOM STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is concluded against the appellant on be very threshold ground of its maintainability by the exhaustive order of this Commission in kohinoor Carpets, Panipat and Ors. V/s. Mr. Rajinder Arora , 1991 2 CPJ 429.

(2.) It emanates from the record that the appellant had preferred a complaint before the District Forum, Jind which was allowed ex-parte on the 6th of May, 1992 with the direction that the respondent would compensate him by making a payment of Rs.1750/-. Apparently, no appeal was preferred against the said order which achieved finality. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Sec.25/27 of the Act for the enforcement of the said order. This however, was dismissed on the 7th of December, 1992.

(3.) As the very heading of this appeal would indicate the same is directed against the order of the District Forum, Jind (in application No.22 of 1992) passed on the 7th of December, 1992. In 'kohinoor Carpets, Panipat and Ors. V/s. Mr. Rajinder Arora' the question whether any appeal lies against the order under Sec.27 of the Act had come up for pointed consideration. Therein after a full discussion of principle and precedent, it was concluded as under : "to conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that no appeal under Sec.15 lies against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum in exercise of its power under Sec.27 above. "