05-12-14 – This appeal has been filed alongwith a petition for condoning the delay of about five weeks.

 The limitation petition is absolutely misconceived in as much as it is stated therein that the present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 46 of 2004, whereas actually as per the memo of the appeal it has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2014 passed in Execution Case No. 28 of 2008 by learned District Consumer Forum, Deoghar.  Thus, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay.

2.        However, heard learned counsel for the appellant/J.Dr., on merit.

3.        In F.A. No. 496 of 2008, the appellant/J. Dr. was directed to redeem the mortgaged property and release the concerned documents free from all incumbrances, within two months  from the receipt of the order, failing which it will be liable to pay compensation to the complainant @ Rs. 200 per day for the delay. 

Such order became final between the parties. The complainant/Dr. Hr./Respondent filed Execution Case  No. being 28 of 2008 for executing the said judgment, passed in FA. No. 496 of 2008.

4.        The impugned order has been passed on the petition filed by the complainant/Dr. Hr. dated 25.11.2008 under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 Before the Executing Court, the appellant/J. Dr. submitted that in terms of the said judgment passed in F.A. No. 496 of 2008 the documents were issued within two months.   Further according to the appellant/J. Dr., the copy of the said judgment passed in FA.

No. 496 of 2008 was communicated on 12.01.2012. It was further said by the J. Dr. that the documents were not sent by post as they were valuable documents and therefore the complainant/Dr. Hr. was asked to receive them but he did not come. Then the documents were sent by post and therefore there was no violation of the said order passed in F.A. No. 496 of 2008.

5.        The learned Executing Court interalia observed that the appellant/J. Dr. was fully aware as to what documents were to be returned to the Dr. Hr. i.e. seven in number and if the intention of the appellant/J.Dr. were clear, the concerned documents could be furnished before the executing forum, but instead of doing that, the appellant/J. Dr. was delaying the matter, on one or the other pretext.

            Accordingly, the appellant/J. Dr. was directed to hand over the concerned seven documents to the complainant/Dr. Hr. and also pay Rs. 200/- per day, failing which interest @ 9% will be also payable on such amount, at least from 2.01.2012, i.e. the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment passed in F.A. No. 496 of 2008.

6.        Referring to the letters dated 3.07.1994 and 10.07.1994 issued by Swami Sahjanand Sarsawati Sahkarita Girih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd. Deoghar,   learned counsel submitted that some documents were handed over to the complainant/ Dr. Hr.- Babulal Yadav.

But these letters are much prior to the date of the judgment dated 02.05.2011 passed in F.A. No. 496 of 2008 by this Forum, and therefore are not relevant for deciding this appeal

7.        After hearing learned counsel for the appellant/J. Dr. at length, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

            Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  

            Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,     

Dated: 5-12-2014