AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINT No. 174 of 2003 was decided on 30.11.2007, directing the petitioner/OP, Mr. Amar Vamanrao Bhagat to execute the Conveyance of Property in favour of the Kailas Park Co -operative Housing Society and Ors., the complainants/Decree Holders. The O.P. had filed an appeal before the State Commission and further Revision Petition before the National Commission, bearing No. 3818 of 2008, which were dismissed. Thereafter, the Decree Holder filed Execution Petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Mr. Amar Vamanrao Bhagat. The order was passed by the Executing Court which resulted into the conviction of the Petitioner. On 2.5.2012, the Judgment Debtor moved an application before the Executing Court wherein the following prayers were made - - (a) This Hon''ble Court may be pleased to go through the Record and Proceedings of Application No. 174/2003 and Execution Application No. 38/2008 and other Orders passed by the above Hon''ble Court be cancelled and set aside by dismissing those orders of the applicants, and pass appropriate and legal orders in the interest of natural justice.
(b) Pass an order of injunction against the Society Members not to proceed further or create third -party interest, till realization of this Application.
(c) Ad interim injunction in terms of prayer Clause (b) above may please be granted.
(d) The Society and its Members be ordered to submit true and faithful account for the amount which they have received by reselling and or retransferring the flats and shops to third party.
(e) Any other order in the interest of natural justice be passed.
THE District Forum held that such application was not maintainable and dismissed the application vide order dated 9.5.2012. First Appeal was preferred before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the same vide order dated 13.9.2012. The first case was decided by the State Commission on 22.1.2009. The original First Appeal No. 1604/2007, clearly mentions - - 5. ..........He pleaded that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, Shri A.V. Bhagat and Shri G.B. Bhagat had filed civil suit against the Kailash Builders and in appeal that matter was comprised in terms of consent decree and in the consent decree the respondent Shri A.V. Bhagat and Sh. G.B. Bhagat took responsibility to execute final conveyance deed in favour of the flat purchasers. He also undertook liability to settle the claims if flat purchasers file any suit or claims against the appellants i.e., Kailash Builders. It was further decided in terms of consent terms that respondent Shri A.V. Bhagat is the only owner of the land bearing Plot No. 2, CTS No. 1306, Yerwada, Pune as he has purchased portion of it from Shri G.B. Bhagat by sale deed dated 28.7.1981. Thus, the O.P. No. 3, pleaded that the conveyance deed will have to be executed by Shri A.V. Bhagat, Shri G.B. Bhagat and Kailash Builders in the circumstances are not required to execute sale deed in favour of flat purchasers/the complainants. As such, it pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs. 6. On the basis of affidavits and documents placed before us, relying on the consent terms and decree passed in terms thereof by District Court, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 354/2000, the Forum below held that conveyance deed will have to be executed by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, it was pleased to order O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to execute conveyance deed in favour of the flat purchasers, within thirty days. As such, the Org. O.P. No. 1, Shri A.V. Bhagat has filed this appeal.
WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. He made the following submissions. The complaint is frivolous. A trader cannot be a ''consumer''. The complainant is a Trespasser and has trespassed into their land. The Court had no jurisdiction to try this case. All these proceedings have caused harassment to the Judgment Debtors. He has further argued that he was not given an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses.
WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner at length. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned Counsel for the petitioner just skirted it. It is well settled that an Executing Court cannot go behind the Decree. This matter pertains to the year 1980 (15.5.1980). Thirty -four (34) years have elapsed. Justice delayed is not justice denied. It is also justice circumvented, Justice mocked, and the system of Justice undermined. This is a case of unfair trade practice. The National Commission has already decided the case. That case has attained finality. This application is an abuse of process of the Court. Moreover, the State Commission observed, as under: Before parting with the order, with pains, we observe that learned Counsel (quite senior in age) appearing for the appellant''s conduct was derogatory to maintain the decorum in the Commission and, further, seeing that the Bench was not in his favour, indicating that there is no merit in the appeal and when proceeded to dictate this order, the learned Counsel shouted and submitted that we should not pass the order. We find no reason to entertain such request. For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order - - ORDER
Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. The conduct of the learned Advocate, Mr. V.B. Bhagat, who has been contesting this case before the District Forum was not upto the mark. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition with punitive costs of Rs. 20,000, which be paid by the Judgment Debtor to the Decree Holders/Complainants, within 45 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.