Decree-holder has filed the present Revision Petition against an order arising in the Execution Petition.

          Petitioner filed Complaint No.108/2004 in the Court of District Forum, Bolangir, Orissa challenging the validity of the bill for Rs.28,692.91p. demanded by the judgement-debtors on the ground that the bill was based on improper calculation.  Judgement-debtors appeared before the District Forum and filed their written statement refuting the allegations made in the complaint.  The District Forum disposed of the complaint based on compromise arrived at between the parties, which reads as under :

“The advocate for the complainant and the O.Ps. beg to submit as under :

1.                That conjointly we agree to abide with the envisaged procedure as regards settlement of bills appealed by the consumer to assess the E.C. bill for the period dt.20.02.1991 to dt.30.08.2002 provided the Meter is in tact and there is no ultravires regarding the status of meter during the mentioned period.

2.                That, we agree to settle the issue duly chasing after the meter readings duly brought by the field personnels from period to period and on ascertaining any clue as regards imposition of bills surpassing the actual consumption read by the officer provided the meter condition should be O.K. by that time.

3.                That, admitted a sum of Rs.1496.53p. in cash has been paid in excess to the O.Ps. vide receipt No.343588 dt.02.11.98 and receipt No.54847 dt.16.03.2002 respectively and the same has been entered in the Ledger and if the said amount is found excess after revision of bills, the same will be adjusted/refunded in the subsequent bills of the complainant.  Both parties admit provided the payment is found excess to the demanded bills.”

           According to the decree-holder, as the judgement-debtor did not comply with the directions issued by the District Forum, he filed an Execution Petition before the District Forum.  District Forum, vide its order dated 7.7.2005, in the concluding paragraph held as under :

“In view of the discussion made above, and accordingly as per the compromise petition the judgement debtors are directed to review the record preparing a bill for load of 47.4 KW instead of 51.5 KW and pay the Decree Holder the differential amount.

                             Put up the case on 22.7.2005 for further order.”

The case was listed on 22.7.2005.  The same kept on being adjourned at the request of counsel for the judgement-debtors on the ground that the judgement-debtors had preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The case was adjourned to 18.8.2005 to enable the counsel for the judgement-debtors to file the stay orders passed by the State Commission in the appeal filed by the judgement-debtors.  The appeal was numbered C.D. Appeal No.544/2005.  The State Commission, taking the orders dated 7.7.2005 and 22.7.2005 to be the final orders passed in the Execution Petition, set aside the orders dated 7.7.2005 and 22.7.2005 and allowed the appeal and dismissed the Execution Petition without realizing that it was hearing the appeal against the interim orders passed by the District Forum and the Execution Petition could be dismissed only after a final order had been passed by the District Forum.  To that extent, the order of the State Commission deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 

The case is remitted back to the District Forum to complete the Execution proceedings in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by the State Commission. 

Since this is an old case, we direct the District Forum to dispose of the Execution Petition within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District Forum on 19.11.2009. 

Parties would be at liberty to lead whatever evidence they seek to lead.