23-092014
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Jt. Drs./Petitioners, against the order dated 05.06.2014 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad in Execution Case No. 4 of 2012 arising out of Consumer Case No. 185 of 2007 whereby the learned forum has directed the Dr. Hr./O.P. to supply the names and addresses of the Jt. Drs. for issuing the bailable warrant of arrest.
2. Mr. Bibhash Sinha learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that due to illness of Smt. Sudha Pandey, one of Jt. Drs., the judgment dated 25.07.11 passed by this Commission in the F.A. No. 115 of 2009 could not be complied. Now the Jt. Drs. May be permitted to comply with the first part of the operative portion of the said Judgement within three months.
3. On the other hand, Mr. A. Banerjee learned counsel appearing for the Dr. Hrs. submitted that the order under revision has been rightly passed. He also submitted that the directions issued in the first part of the operative portion having not been complied within the given time, the second part has become final and binding on the Jt. Drs. far back but only for delaying the execution case, this frivolous and vexatious revision petition has been filed. He further submitted that any interference with the said judgement of this Commission will amount to reviewing the judgement, which is not permissible.
4. It appears from the order under revision that on 24.7.2012 order was passed by the executing court for issuance of bailable warrant, and then the Dr. Hrs. were directed to supply the names and addresses of the Jt. Drs. for issuance of bailable warrant. We find nothing wrong with this said order.
5. Further, the operative portion of the said Judgement passed by this Commission in F.A. No-115 of 2009 reads as follows:-
“ 8. For the reasons stated above we find and hold that the impugned order is not well reasoned, based on misleading findings and so it cannot sustain as such it stands set aside. The respondent is directed to hand over true copy of building plan to the appellant in a week and complete jobs found undone in the pleader commissioners report and the children part as per his brochure within six months from the date of this order otherwise he has to pay 10,00,000/- to the appellant association together with interest @ 10 % from the date of this order. With this modification the appeal is allowed but no order as to cost.”
6. The said judgement was passed on 25.07.2011. Admittedly the Jt. Drs. Have not complied with the first part of the direction within Six months from the date of the order. Therefore, the second portion of the direction to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Dr. Hrs. / Association together with interest @ 10% from the date of the order, has become final and binding on the Jt. Drs.. Any interference with the said judgement will amount to reviewing the said judgement which is not permissible. The judgements reported in III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC) Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah Vrs. Bombay Hospital Trust and the judgement reported in III (1999) CPJ 77 (NC) M/s Scooter India Ltd. Vrs. Pradeep Kumar can be seen.
7. Thus, we are satisfied that this revision petition is frivolous and vexations. Accordingly this is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. On this Mr. Bibhash Sinha submitted that the petitioners have already deposited Rs. 10,000/- and therefore no further cost may be imposed. In the circumstances, the petitioners are directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the executing court within four weeks, failing which the Dr. Hrs. will be entitled to recover the same in the execution proceeding. The parties are directed to appear before the executing court at 11 A.M. on 14.10.2014. The executing court is directed to take all necessary steps in accordance with law for early execution of the said judgement dated 25.07.2011 passed in F.A. No. 115 of 2009, as indicated above. With these observations and directions this revision petition is dismissed.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:-23/09/2014
