MAHABIR SINGH DESWAL vs ARORA HANDLOOM STORE

THIS appeal is concluded against the appellant on be very threshold ground of its maintainability by the exhaustive order of this Commission in II (1991) CPJ 429 ''Kohinoor Carpets, Panipat & Ors. v. Mr. Rajinder Arora''.

IT emanates from the record that the appellant had preferred a complaint before the District Forum, Jind which was allowed ex-parte on the 6th of May, 1992 with the direction that the respondent would compensate him by making a payment of Rs. 1750/-. Apparently, no appeal was preferred against the said order which achieved finality. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Section 25/27 of the Act for the enforcement of the said order. This however, was dismissed on the 7th of December, 1992. As the very heading of this appeal would indicate the same is directed against the order of the District Forum, Jind (in application No. 22 of 1992) passed on the 7th of December, 1992. In ''Kohinoor Carpets, Panipat & Ors. v. Mr. Rajinder Arora'' (supra) the question whether any appeal lies against the order under Section 27 of the Act had come up for pointed consideration. Therein after a full discussion of principle and precedent, it was concluded as under : "To conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that no appeal under Section 15 lies against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum in exercise of its power under Section 27 above."

In view of the above, it is somewhat manifest that the present appeal is not maintainable. Mr. Duhan, the learned Counsel for the appellant could say next to nothing in distinguishing the present appeal from the ratio of the order noticed above. A somewhat half hearted prayer was then made that the appeal may be treated as a revision. However, we do not find the least adequate ground for doing so.

FOR the foregoing reasons as, this appeal has necessarily to be held as non-maintainable and is dismissed as such. Appeal dismissed.