This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in execution application No. 20 of 2009.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has directed the opposite party to pay the required consideration amount to the revisionist as per the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 164 of 2002 and the revisionist has been directed to execute the sale deed of shop Nos. L-49 and L-50 in favour of the opposite party and after execution of the sale deed, the parties have been directed to appear before the District Forum in person on 18.10.2016 and to submit the compliance report.

Firstly, the revisionist has filed First Appeal No. 211 of 2016 against the impugned order dated 09.09.2016, but at the time of hearing on admission on 17.10.2016, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (now revisionist) has moved an application dated 17.10.2016, praying therein that the appeal be treated as revision petition.  The said application was allowed by this Commission and the appeal was treated as revision petition.

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the revisionist before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was registered as consumer complaint No. 225 of 1998, which was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 29.08.2002.  The said order was challenged by the revisionist before this Commission by filing Appeal No. 164 of 2002.  The said appeal was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 30.12.2002 and the consumer complaint was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision petition No. 295 of 2003 before the Hon’ble National Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 20.10.2005 and the order dated 30.12.2002 passed by this Commission was set aside and the case was remanded back to this Commission for decision afresh on merit.  Upon remand of the case, the First Appeal        No. 164 of 2002 was decided by this Commission vide order dated 28.01.2009 and the order dated 29.08.2002 passed by the District Forum was modified in the terms as indicated in the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the District Forum in the execution application.  Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Commission, the revisionist preferred revision petition No. 2732 of 2009 before the Hon’ble National Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2016 on the ground of limitation.  Thereafter, the revisionist filed an SLP No. 13839 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which too was dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2016.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued before us that the order impugned passed by the District Forum is not executable under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is misconceived.  The decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi given in the case of Kashyap Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and another; 2001 (1) CPR 128, pressed into service by the learned counsel for the revisionist, does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  In the said case, the shop was purchased in auction.  It was held that the shop kiosks having been purchased in an auction, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint regarding the said transaction.

Thus, the situation as stands now, is that the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 164 of 2002, thereby modifying the order dated 29.08.2002 passed by the District Forum, has been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same has attained finality.

As has been stated, the District Forum has passed the impugned order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for compliance of the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by this Commission strictly in terms of the said order, which as is stated above, has become final, as the SLP filed by the revisionist has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  The revision petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

Revision petition is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself.  No order as to costs.