MOITRAYEE CHATTERJEE Vs. SAMIR KUMAR BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 22.1.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata allowing appeal against the order dated 30.6.2005 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner who was opposite party No.3, to execute and register conveyance deed in respect of the flats in question along with respondent No.4/opposite party No.1 and respondent No.5/opposite party No.2 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3/complainants and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony. Petitioner and her sister -respondent No.5, owned property No.11A, Bedia Danga, 2nd Lane, Kolkata and under an agreement dated 28.1.1995, petitioner and respondent No.5 entered into a Development agreement with respondent No. 4 developer. Flats in question falling to the share of respondent No.4 under that agreement were sold by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for a consideration of Rs. 3,46,000 which they paid and possession of the flats was also handed over by respondent No.4 to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 19.9.1998. On failure to execute and register conveyance deed in regard to the flats sold, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed complaint which, on contest, was allowed and in appeal the order under challenge came to be passed by the State Commission. Submission advanced by Ms. Surekha Raman, amicus curiae for the petitioner is that as respondent .No.4 had failed to fulfil reciprocal obligations under the said agreement towards the petitioner she cannot be ordered to join in execution and registration of the conveyance deed of the flats in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Submission is however without any merit inter -se between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 cannot be the basis for denying to join in execution and registration of conveyance deed by the petitioner particularly when respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have paid the full sale consideration and put in possession of the flats by respondent No. 4. Petitioner cannot seek any help of the orders passed in civil litigation and in the pendency thereof referred to in the order of State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) Petition dismissed.