MONTARI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detailed facts on the basis of which the present revision petition has been filed are not necessary to be noticed except that the order passed under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act having been obeyed, the District Forum still insisted for the presence of the judgment debtor in person that the judgment debtor has challenged such order in this revision petition. It is useful to reproduce the same from paras 2 (v) and (vi) of the petition : "statement of Mr. Sunil Bansal, Advocate Counsel for the DH. The grievance of the complainant/dh have been redressed by JD after filing execution application and I do not want to proceed with the execution application and same may be filed as fully satisfied. President. RO and AC DCF, Mansa. Statement of Sh. Manpreet Singh Sohal, Legal Executive for Montari Industries Ltd. , JD. I have no objection if the DH is allowed to withdraw his execution application, since the orders of the Forum have been complied with by JD. President. RO and AC DCF, Mansa. " (vi) Present : Mr. Sunil Bansal, Adv. for DH and JD. On 4.9.1997, the Counsel for the complainant made a statement that the grievances of DH have been redressed by JD. But this is an execution application and presence of JD is essential. Now execution application is adjourned for presence of JD through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. To come up on 10.10.1997. Member, DCF, Mansa. President. "

(2.) The respondent, decree holder filed written reply to the revision petition and on merits in paras 2 (v) and (vi) admitted the correctness of corresponding paras as reproduced above. What is left after compliance of the order passed under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act for the District Forum to decide for which presence of the judgment debtor was being insisted is not understandable. After the decree holder and judgment debtor had made statements as referred to above on September 4 and September 5, 1997, the only course left to the District Forum was to dispose of the application filed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act as no further action was required to be taken. Insistence on the part of the District Forum for the personal presence of Managing Director of the petitioner Company, Montari Industries Limited after fully compliance of the order passed under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, would be nothing but exceeding exercise of jurisdiction. While allowing the revision petition, we quash the orders passed by the District Forum on September 5 and October 10, 1997 calling for the personal attendance of the Managing Director of the petitioner Company and consign the proceedings initiated under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act requiring no further action.