Haru Das vs Soumen Karmakar & Ors

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner cites a judgment, reported at AIR 2019 S.C. 2290 (Karnataka Housing Board vs. K. A. Nagamani), for the proposition that no revisional application under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was maintainable against an order passed by a State Commission in execution proceedings.

On the strength of such judgment, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the only remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the State Forum in execution proceedings.

In view of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, this revisional application is being entertained.

The petitioner has raised a valid question as to whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Bengal, refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in not entertaining the petitioner's objection to the execution of an order of specific performance passed by the Forum on the ground that, in the garb of executing the said decree in respect of a flat, being flat no. 4C, the petitioner's separate flat, which was not the subject matter of the lis, was also sought to be recovered.

In such view of the matter, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be heard on such question.

Accordingly, the petitioner shall serve copies of this revisional application on the opposite party nos. 1 to 3, indicating that the matter will appear as a 'listed motion' in the monthly list of November, 2019.

Service on the proforma opposite party is dispensed with for the present.

The petitioner shall file an affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.

There will be an order of stay of all further proceedings in Case No. EA/190/2016, pending before the District Forum, till November 30, 2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.