Sanjay Sethia,

son of Abhoyraj Sethia,  

residing at P3/1,Dobson Lane, Flat no. 25, 2^nd floor,

P.S. Golabari,  District – Howrah,

PIN - 711101.  ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      M/S. Eastern Engineering and Associates,

a proprietorship firm

having its office at Andul Road, Arabinda Sarani,

Howrah – 711104,

represented by its proprietor Mr.  Ravi Kant Srivastava,

son of late Prem Prakash Srivastava,

at  Andul Road, Arabinda Sarani,

Howrah – 711109.

2.      Sri Benoyendra Nath Ghosh,

son of late  Gopinath  Ghosh,

at Siddhi  Vinayak Apartment, 3^rd floor,

Vivekananda Nagar Colony Andul Road, P.O. Padrah,

P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711109.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register proper deed of sale with respect to  the schedule mentioned property together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of receiving the major portion of the consideration money did not execute and register the deed of sale  in violation of the agreement dated 27-08-2009.

2.               The o.p. no. 1 in the written version stated that he is willing to execute the deed as prayed for.

3.               The o.p. no. 2 in his written version contended interalia that the complaint is false, frivolous and concocted and is liable to be dismissed.

4.        Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant paid major portion of the consideration money. Admittedly o.p. no. 1 is ready to execute and register the sale deed but is not in a position to comply the same as the o.p. no. 2 is not willing to participate in the process of registration.  Since the complainant has paid his hard-earned money for purchase of the schedule mentioned property, the obstinacy of the o.p. no. 2 cannot stand in the way. Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 139 of 2013 ( HDF 139  of 2013 )  be and the same is allowed on contests as   against  the O.P. no. 1 and without costs as against the o.p. no. 2.   

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the schedule mentioned property in favour of the complainant. within 30 days from the date of this order

      The complainant be directed to pay the balance consideration amount of  Rs. 2,45,000/- to the o.p. no. 1  within 15 days from the date of this order. 

      The o.p. no. 2 shall be the confirming party in the process of registration.

      The o.p. no. 1 do pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.