On 26.04.19 the complainants has filed the complaint with a prayer to direct the O.Ps for executing a registered sale deed in favour of the complainants in respect of flat in question which is in possession of the complainants along with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- due to physical ane mental pain and professional loss and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

The case of the complainants in brief is that the O.Ps are private company which is a partnership firm dealing with various Abasan or flat for selling and purchasing. The complainants has purchased a flat with garage at Kulick Apartment, Wing No.3, Flat No.C-4, Second Floor parked area 700 Sq.Ft., Plinth Area 800 Sq. Ft. and Super Built Area 840 Sq. Ft. amounting to Rs.10,58,000/- and Rs.35,000/- only for the residential purpose on taking loan from banking concern. The complainants after payment of the whole amount to the O>ps, they prayed some amount to the lawyer for completion and registration process of the said flat. At the time of executing the sale deed the O.ps did not agree to execute the sale deed due to ome financial problem arise between the partners and as such there was no possibility to completion of the registration process and they assured that them immediately solved the matter and shall execute the sale deed. The complainants on the basis of the said assurance  waited. But after lapse of long period the complainants contacted with the O.Ps and requested them to execute the sale deed, but no action has been taken. Finding no other alternative the complainants were compelled to give legal notice dt.13.07.16 to the O.Ps, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, they filed a complaint before the Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P, Uttar Dinajpur for redressal of the grievances, but no fruitful result came out. The complainants unable to file this complaint in due time as there only daughter was suffering from acute viral fever and they also filed a separate petition for condonation of delay in filing the complaint.

The case was admitted after condoning the delay and notices were issued upon the O.Ps. Inspite of having receipt of the notices the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 did not appear to contest the case and accordingly the case was heard ex parte against them.

The O.P.No.3 has contested the case by filing W.V denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the para Nos.1,2 and 3 of the complaint are admitted and para Nos. Nos.4,5 and 6 are the personal matter of the complainants. It is admitted by the O.P.No.3 that the complainants took possession of the flat on 19.06.11 from the O.P.No.3 and due to paucity of fund they were not ready to take registration of the flat in their names from the registration authority. This O.P. could not execute the sale deed as the O.P No.1 revoked the power of attorney from the O.P.No.3 without any reason, but he is still ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants as and when the Elora Construction is agreed to execute the sale deed. He further stated that the O.P.No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation and litigation cost and prayed for passing necessary order in this regard.

                                                                                     Decision with reasons

The complainant Sokha Sinha has examined herself as P.W.1. The O.P.No.3 did not adduce any evidence .

On perusal of the evidence on record of P.W.1including cross examination by O.P.No.3 and documentary evidence produced by the complainant it appears that the flat in question has been purchased by the complainants which has been admitted by O.P.No.3 in his W.V also. But the plea taken by the O.P.No.3 in his W.V to the effect that as the O.P.No.1 revoked the power of attorney from O.P.No.3 without any reason they could not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants has not been proved by way of evidence. He who takes the plea must proved the same. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps not to deliver the flat in question by way of registration of sale deed. In this case the O.P.No.1,2 and 3 being a partnership firm has a common liability to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants and all of them are jointly and severally liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants by way of registration. Though it is admitted by the O.P.No.3 that the complainants are in physical possession of the flat in question yet they could not get legal possession by way of registration of sale deed from them. That apart, at the time of hearing of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainants submitted that if the O.Ps are ready to execute the sale deed by way of registration it will be sufficient for them without claiming any compensation or litigation cost and in cross examination P.W.1 admitted that she has no objection if the O.P.No.3 has delivered the property by way of registration and she has also no claim save and except the registration till date against the O.P.No.3. Accordingly, if the O.P.No.3 will make a sale deed by way of registration in favour of the complainants then it will be binding all the O.Ps.

Under the above facts and circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for save and except the compensation and litigation cost.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, it is

                                         ORDERED

That this complaint case being no. CC-23/19 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.No.3 and ex parte against the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 without cost.

The O.P.No.3 is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants by way of registration within one month from the date of the final order.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.