NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 7.1.2005 passed by District Forum, Panipat in the execution application filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner-opposite party.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the Complaint Case No.151 of 2004 filed on 9.4.2004 was accepted on 3.11.2004 by the District Forum, Panipat, whereby direction was given to the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.6,39,500 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 24.11.2003 till the date of realisation on net salvage basis, within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. On 7.1.2005 the respondent-complainant filed the execution application seeking execution of the order dated 3.11.2004. On the same day the following order was passed by the District Forum: "present: Sh. P. K. Saini, Counsel for the complainant. Execution application/petition put up today. Notice to the respondent be issued under Sections 25 and 27 of the C. P. Act for 18.2.2005 after filing copies, etc. "

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-opposite party on the ground that proceedings under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not sustainable without initiating proceedings under Sec.25 of the Act and before passing such order under these provisions an opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the petitioner, straightaway initiated proceedings under Sec.27 of the Act. It was further averred that proceedings of execution filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and for that reason the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The respondent has contested the revision petition. The Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length. During the course of arguments, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had filed the execution application without waiting for the outcome of the preliminary hearing of the appeal which was listed for 24.1.2005 though the same has been dismissed on 24.1.2005. It needs to be noticed in this regard that preposition of law is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal would not operate as stay of an order appealed against because a party having succeeded cannot be deprived of the fruits of the order obtained merely because defeated party had chosen to invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. Even if an application for stay along with the appeal is filed, discretion is left with the Appellate Authority to grant order of stay or refused the same. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that at the time when the execution was filed, any stay order has been passed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, there is hardly any merit in the submission made in this regard.