1.      Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate, for the petitioner.

2.      This revision has been filed against the interim order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench Nagpur dated 18.06.2021 passed in First Appeal No. A-21/117 (arising out of the order of Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur dated 08.03.2021, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 18/682), whereby District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and his firm to demarcate plot No. 4 of their lay out of Khasra No. 142/2, P.H. No. 38, Mouza Belatradi, according to its area as allotted to the complainant, execute sale deed of in favour of the complainant and give possession of it to him, after charging expenses of the sale deed; in alternative to return value of the plot on the basis of market rate as on today and pay Rs.20,000/- for financial, mental and physical harassment and Rs.10000/- as cost of the litigation. In the appeal filed from aforesaid order, the petitioner has been granted interim order on the condition of deposit of decretal amount within four weeks.

3.      Dr. Tushar (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 18/682, for directing the opposite parties to execute sale deed of plot No. 4, in their lay out of Khasra No. 142/2, P.H. No. 38, of Mauza Belatradi, tehsil Nagpur (Rural) district Nagpur in his favour. It has been stated that the opposite parties were in business of developing residential plots and selling it. Their agents canvassed the complainant that the opposite parties were developing Khasra No. 142/2, P.H. No. 38, of Mauza Belatradi, tehsil Nagpur (Rural) district Nagpur and demarcating residential plots for sale. The complainant booked a residential plot and deposited booking amount. Later on Plot No. 4 (area 515.63 sq. mtr) of the layout of Khasra No. 142/2, aforesaid was booked to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- which was paid to the opposite parties between 07.01.2012 to 23.04.2012. The complainant requested the opposite parties to execute sale deed of the aforesaid plot in his favour, which was avoided on one or other pretext. Later on they executed possession letter and no objection certificate dated 25.06.2007 and thereafter a Power of Attorney on 19.10.2012, in his favour and permitted him to raise construction. The complainant approached the Bank for Home Loan, in 2014, then the valuer of the bank informed that these papers were not title deed, on which loan could not be sanctioned. On the allegations that the opposite parties were committing unfair trade practice and there was deficiency in service on their part, the complaint was filed.    

4.      The petitioner contested the case and filed his written statement on 27.10.2017, in which, all material facts were denied. It has been stated that the complainant has fabricated Power of Attorney dated 19.10.2012. On coming to know about this Power of attorney, he filed a criminal complaint against the complainant and the advocate, who had attested his signature on the Power of Attorney at police station Hudkeshwar on 08.07.2017, where criminal case was registered against them.  Various technical plea relating to jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and the complainant was time barred were also raised.     

5.      District Forum by the judgment dated 08.03.2021, held that receipts relating to payment of sale consideration, possession letter and no objection certificate dated 25.06.2007 were on printed papers of the firm. When the FIR relating to fabrication of Power of Attorney was challenged in High Court, where original papers were filed then the opposite proposed for compromise and handed over two cheques of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant 08.03.2018 and 05.05.2018, from which it was proved that they had booked the residential plot to the complainant and received sale consideration; they were avoiding execution of sale deed. On these findings the complaint was allowed and order as stated above has been passed.     

6.      The petitioner filed First Appeal No. A-21/117, from the aforesaid order. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench Nagpur, by dated 18.06.2021 granted interim order on the condition of deposit of decretal amount within four weeks. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the revisionist and examined the record. Neither the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides any provision for grant of stay in the appeal filed from the foras below similar to the provision Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC. Probably for the reason that Section 19A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and Section 52 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contain a statutory mandate for the appellate authority to decide the appeal finally within a period of 90 days from its admission. Although appeal is a substantial right and statutorily conferred, but stay is neither a substantial right, nor statutorily conferred under these Acts. However, due to workload in the State Commission as well as in the National Commission, the appeal are not being decided within 90 days. In order to balance equity between the parties invoking the inherent powers, stay is being granted in the appeal and in order to compensate the other side/decree holder, the appellant is directed to deposit entire decretal amount, which is fully inconsonance with the Order XLI Rule 5(3) CPC as the award is in the shape of money decree.  This practice is being followed by the State Commission in the country as well as National Commission also.  The Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 has held that the appellate court does have jurisdiction to put a party seeking stay order on such terms as would reasonably compensate to a successful party in the end of the appeal in so far as those proceedings are concerned.  We do not find that the State Commission has committed any illegality in directing the appellant to deposit the entire market value as on the date of the property. 

8.      It has been contended that the condition imposed by the State Commission for grant of stay is onerous.  We do not find any merit in this case inasmuch as if the appellant has already realized the cost of the land 10 years back from the complainant and he is directed to deposit the cost of the land at this moment then the condition would become onerous.  In the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision petition. We refrain ourselves to make any comment in respect of the merit of the case.  It may prejudice the parties before the State Commission.  If anything has been stated in this judgment on the merit then it may not be looked by the State Commission. The revisionist could not point out any illegality in the orders of Foras below. The revision has no merit.  

O R D ER

          In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is dismissed.