No. 3/04.06.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. Sukhen Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate are present.  This is a revision application challenging order of the District Forum Darjeeling in Execution Case No. 5/D/2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1/D/2005.  It appears that the Forum decided the complaint case with the following order:

“That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.  The complt. do get an order for a sum of Rs. 69,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12%/annum.  He is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.  The O.P. (Bank) is directed to pay off the aforesaid amount within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of order.  The O.P. (Bank) may give the amount of Rs.69,000/- with interest either in cash or by way of adjustment against the loan amount of the complt.  In default of payment of the amount as ordered the complt. shall have the right to realize this amount by executing this order in terms of Sections 25(i), (ii) and (iii) and 27(i) (ii) and (iii) of C. P. Act 1986 (since amended).  It is further directed to the O.P(s) to be conscious enough so that such thing many not occur in future”.

In the execution proceeding the impugned order was passed by order No. 13 dated 05.02.2010 wherein the Executing Forum has taken into consideration the entire dispute between the two parties.  Mr. Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate for O.P. challenging the order in support of the revision case contended that Executing Forum while considering the execution case is not entitled to take into consideration any matter except the issue decided by the original judgement which is being sought to be executed.  Mr. Chatterjee wanted to rely on an agreement dated 27.09.2005 as also other transactions allegedly following the said agreement.  But as Mr. Chatterjee’s orginal argument that Executing Forum is not entitled to look into any material beyond the original order which is being executed, is accepted by us, we are unable to consider the other contentions relating to the agreement and other transactions beyond the original order sought to be executed.

Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the O.P. contended that the Executing Forum did not commit any mistake as the other transactions, taken note of in the impugned order, are not denied by the Bank on facts.

This also cannot be accepted as the law is that the Executing Forum is not to go beyond the order being executed.

In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside.  The Executing Forum is directed to proceed in accordance with law namely Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for recovery of the amounts mentioned in the ordering portion of the Forum finally deciding the consumer complaint on 02.09.2005.  As the matter is pending for some time the Forum is requested to dispose of the execution case as early as possible preferably within a period of two months.

A copy of the said order be sent down to the Forum concerned expeditiously.