1. Heard Mr.Ashok Tajane-Proxy Advocate for Mr.Sachin Hande-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.M.Deodhar-Advocate for the respondent. 2. Order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur in execution application no.57/2009 on 03/11/2009 is under challenge. By this order the District Consumer Forum has found that the orders which were passed by the District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint no.320/2009 have been complied with by the opponent/builder and have therefore disposed of the execution application. Said order is under challenge. The undisputed facts in the present matter are as follows:- 3. That the complainants have filed the complaint bearing no.320/2009 against the opponent. Said complaint was decided on 28/5/2008. It is directed to the respondent that he shall give possession of parking place in stilt area as shown in the matter. Rs.2000/- were directed to be paid for mental agony and cost of litigation Rs.1000/-. It is admitted fact that as per this order amount of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- have been paid by the respondent/builder. It is also admitted that the stilt portion of the parking has been vacated and given into possession. 4. Grievance which appellant is making before us is that in a stilt portion apart from the parking there are two garages and the possession of the said garages has not been given. Ld.counsel for the respondent states that in an order which has attained finality there is no direction to deliver the possession of two constructed garages. He states that stilt portion parking has been given into possession and, thus, he states that the total compliance has been done by the respondent. What is important to be noted is that that the complainant/appellant has filed an application being application no.57/2009 under section 27. In the said application it has been prayed that the respondent shall hand over the parking and garage space and he shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. Since it is an application u/sec.27 such a relief cannot be granted. Relief u/sec.27 is that if the District Consumer Forum found that there is non compliance of the order of the District Consumer Forum, then District Consumer Forum shall punish the opponents/respondent with an imprisonment which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thouosand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Such prayer for punishment for non compliance of the order is not made in the application under section 27. Section 27 though machinery provided for enforcement of the order that does not permit the Consumer Fora to grant specific performance of the orders as contemplated under Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure. Here system has been provided that there will be deterrence by imposing punishment which will induce the punished persons to obey the orders of the Consumer Fora. Therefore, basically application which has been filed under section 27 is misconceived. 5. There is another problem. Respondents are two in number. However, we are told across the bar that there are 33 flat owners and they are claiming possession of stilt area, parking place, etc. on behalf of the purchasers of the flat. In short original complaint was filed as a representative capacity however while filing said complaint provisions of section 12 sub section 1 (c) which requires complainant to obtain a permission from the District Consumer Forum was not taken by the present appellant/complainant. So also section 13 sub section (vi) requires that whenever complaint is a representative complaint, compliance of Order I rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure is necessary. Said compliance was also not done. Therefore, basically what we find that the orders which were passed in representative complaints were improper and the District Consumer Forum has not looked into this aspect. These provisions are mandatory provisions and by flouting mandatory provisions said order has been passed. Therefore, execution in such application appears to be improper. Let it be as it is. Order which was passed is complied with. We find no reason to entertain the present appeal. 6. Since we have noted that the application though titled as application under section 27 is misconceived application, we find that the appeal under section 27-A is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal stands disposed of. 7. We also like to mention at this stage that in filing this appeal there is delay of 47 days. Since we have dealt with the matter mainly on merits delay stands condoned. Misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed. Hence the order:- ORDER 1. Misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed. 2. Appeal stands disposed of for reasons stated above. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
