Chandigarh

DF-I

EA/30/2014

Ramesh Chander Khurana - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

[1]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/30/2014
Date of Institution	:	14/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

Ramesh Chander Khurana s/o S.L. Khurana, Allottee and Resident of #449-M, New Generation Apptt., Ambala-Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

….. Decree Holder/Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through (i) The Managing Director of the Company (ii) Er. R.M. Singla, Director and Authorized Signatory of the Company

…… Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party

[2]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/31/2014
Date of Institution	:	14/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

Ramesh Chander Bawa s/o B.R. Bawa, Allottee and Resident of #425-G, New Generation Apptt., Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

….. Decree Holder/Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through (i) The Managing Director of the Company (ii) Er. R.M. Singla, Director and Authorized Signatory of the Company

…… Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party

[3]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/39/2014
Date of Institution	:	28/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

Kamal Arora, Allottee and Resident of #432-H, New Generation Apptt., Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

….. Decree Holder/Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R.M. Singla.

2.     Smt. Indra Singla w/o Sh. R.M. Singla, Director/ Authorised Signatory of M/s New Generation Real Estate (P) Ltd.

…… Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties

 

[4]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/40/2014
Date of Institution	:	28/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

Bharat Bhushan Bawa s/o B.R. Bawa, Allottee and Resident of #249-M, New Generation Apptt., Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

….. Decree Holder/Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through (i) The Managing Director of the Company (ii) Er. R.M. Singla, Director and Authorized Signatory of the Company.

…… Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party

[5]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/42/2014
Date of Institution	:	28/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

M.K. Jinsi s/o Sh. J.N. Jinsi and r/o Flat No.308, New Generation Apptt., Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

….. Decree Holder/Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through (i) The Managing Director of the Company (ii) Er. R.M. Singla, Director and Authorized Signatory of the Company.

…… Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party

 

[6]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/44/2014
Date of Institution	:	31/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

Veena Kapoor w/o Sh. Kamal Kishore Kapoor, Allottee and Resident of #248-M, New Generation Apptt., Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

….. Decree Holder/Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R.M. Singla,

2.     Smt. Indra Singla w/o Sh. R.M. Singla, Ex-Director of M/s New Generation Real Estate (P) Ltd.

…… Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties

 

[7]

Execution Application No.	:	EA/45/2014
Date of Institution	:	31/03/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

1.     Ikbal Krishan Kapoor s/o Late Sh. Pran Nath Kapoor R/o Flat No.423, Block-F, New Generation Apptt., Dhakoli (Zirakpur).

2.     Vivek Kapoor (Legal heir and s/o complainant No.2 i.e. Veena Kapoor) r/o 12, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta-71.

3.     Manisha (Legal heir and s/o complainant No.2 i.e. Veena Kapoor) r/o H.No.264, Sector 7, Panchkula.

….. Decree Holders/Complainants

V E R S U S

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through (i) The Managing Director of the Company (ii) Er. R.M. Singla, Director and Authorized Signatory of the Company

…… Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person (in case at Sr.No.1 above) and Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana, Authorised Agent of the complainant (in cases at Sr.No.2 to 7 above).
	:	Sh. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith Sh. Dinesh Madra, Advocate, Counsel for OP and Sh. R.M. Singla, Director of OP.

               

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         By this common order, we shall dispose of the above mentioned 7 Execution Applications, filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act), for execution of the order dated 10.7.2013, passed by this Forum, and order dated 10.12.2013, passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, modifying the order of this Forum.
2.         Since the facts, evidence and the law involved in all the above mentioned execution applications are identical, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common order.
3.         The facts are taken out from Execution Application No.30 of 2014-Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New General Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and the orders as well as other documents are also considered from the said case.
4.         Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana, complainant has brought this execution application under Section 27 of the 1986 Act against M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), for execution of the order dated 10.7.2013 of this Forum, which was modified in appeal by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 10.12.2013. 

                The OP Company advertised for the selling of the apartments/flats to the general public on free hold basis. The complainants approached the OP and entered into an agreement for purchase of the flats/apartments. Dis-satisfied with the services of the OP, the complainant brought a complaint under Section 12 of the 1986 Act.  Vide order dated 10.7.2013, this Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OPs as under :-

“34.   For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed :-

i)        To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 

ii)       OP No.1 shall get executed the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, for which, the stamp registration and other incidental charges would be borne by the complainant. If the complainant refuses to get the sale deed executed and registered, he would be doing so at his own risk and responsibility.

iii)      OP No.1 shall furnish the completion and occupation certificate of the apartment to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iv)      OP No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

35.     This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within the stipulated period, as directed above, failing which, OP No.1 would be liable to pay the double of the compensation amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides payment of litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.”

Dis-satisfied with the order of this Forum, the OP preferred an appeal and vide order dated 10.12.2013, the said appeal was partly accepted.  The order of the District Forum was modified and the OP was directed as under :-

“40.   For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, and the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is directed as under:-

i.        To pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, as compensation, on account of mental agony, and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice by it (Opposite Party No.1), instead of Rs.2.50 lacs, awarded by the District Forum, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

ii.       To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

iii.      To execute sale deed/conveyance deed, and get the same registered, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of completion and occupation certificates, on payment of stamp duty, registration fee, and other incidental charges, by respondent no.1/ complainant.

iv.      To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.

v.       The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non-compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, Opposite Party No.1 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.

vi.      In case, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 40 above, is not paid, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then it shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, and compliance of other directions, indicated above.

vii.     Any other direction, given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, or in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.”

Further dis-satisfied with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, the OP approached the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and vide order dated 20.11.2014, the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each for further harassment, mental agony, disappointment, anger and wastage of time of the complainant. The revision petitioners were also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of order, failing which it was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.  It was further ordered that the order of the State Commission shall also be complied with. The entire order, except clause (ii), (iii) & (v) be strictly complied with. The relevant para 21 of the order reads as under :-

                “21.  It is also made clear that the allottees are entitled to all the facilities mentioned in the agreement, e.g., agreement entered into with Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana dated 22.10.2003 and the advertisement, placed on the record as Ex.CD-1 and the brochure, placed on the record.  All these facilities/amenities become part of this decree.  The petitioners are given time to make arrangements for all these facilities/civil amenities, including Community Centre, Commercial Complex/Market, Park, reasonable Car Parking, Entrance Gate, etc., as stated in the above said documents, within a period of six months’ from today, otherwise, it will form part of the decree and the same shall stand executable, before the executing court, i.e. the District Forum.  If the above said works are not accomplished, within a period of six months’, it will carry Rs.10,000/- as penalty per month, till it is accomplished.”

Since, as per the complainant, the OP did not comply with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, so, he has brought the instant execution application under Section 27 of the 1986 Act for compliance of the orders.

5.         The OP resisted the execution application taking the preliminary objections that the execution application is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the execution proceedings are meant to execute the order and not to raise new pleas or taking up the failed pleas; that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law as the same has been filed by the complainant with the sole objective to cover up the default as to non-compliance of the impugned order by not approaching the OP for the execution and registration of the sale deed in terms of the order passed by this Forum with an intention to withdraw the amount of compensation etc., as deposited by the OP, as well as the amount of compensation, being deposited by the OP in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission, without complying with the orders of this Forum.  It is further pleaded that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has intentionally and with malafide intention filed the present execution application in order to harass and humiliate the OP. It has been contended that the sale deeds are being executed since 20.12.2001 i.e. even prior to the purchase of the apartment by the decree holder and even the decree holder, Sh. Ramesh Chander has got his sale deed executed. The OP has always been ready to execute the sale deed in terms of the order of Hon’ble National Commission. The OP prayed for dismissal of the execution application.
6.         During the pendency of this execution application, the complainant brought an application dated 5.6.2015 for enforcement of the execution of the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon’ble National Commission. The complainant brought another application dated 9.7.2015 in compliance to para 10 of the order dated 8.5.2015 of the executing court. The complainant brought another application dated 14.9.2015 under Regulation 23 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 read with Section 13 (5) of the 1986 Act against the JDs/OPs and the EO/NP Zirakpur. 
7.         On the other hand, the OP brought an application (M.A No.50 of 2015) dated 28.5.2015 for placing on record the documents and for passing appropriate orders in terms thereof. The OP also moved an application dated 4.6.2015 simply for placing on record an affidavit. The OP filed another application dated 12.9.2015 seeking directions to the complainant to inform as to which part of the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission remains to be complied with keeping in view the agreement, brochure and advertisement. OP also filed an application dated 12.10.2015 for initiating action against the complainant for not approaching the Forum with clean hands and concealing material facts. OP also filed another application dated 11.1.2016 for placing on record the completion certificate issued vide letter No.3276 dated 18.12.2015. 
8.         All the pending applications are also being disposed of with this common order.
9.         The application of the complainant for execution of the order dated 20.11.2014 of the Hon’ble National Commission shall stand disposed of while deciding the main application under Section 27 of the 1986 Act as the reliefs claimed in both are the same.  The application of the complainant under Regulation 23 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 read with Section 13 (5) of the 1986 Act to proceed against the JDs/OPs shall also stand disposed of while disposing of the main execution application. The application of the complainant in compliance to para 10 of the order dated 8.5.2015 of the executing court shall also stand disposed of by the order passed in the main execution application under Section 27 of the 1986 Act.
10.         The application of the OP (bearing MA No.50 of 2015) with regard to placing of documents on record is allowed. The documents would be considered and appropriate order would be passed while disposing of the main execution application under Section 27 of the 1986 Act.  Similarly, the application for placing on record the affidavit of the OP is also allowed and the OP is allowed to place on record the affidavit. The application of the OP dated 12.10.2015 for initiating action against the complainant shall also stand disposed of while disposing of the main execution application. The application dated  11.1.2016 for placing on record the completion certificate is allowed and the completion certificate is taken on record as the same is a material document to be considered for disposal of the controversy between the parties.
11.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and the learned Counsel for the OP.
12.         The controversy in this execution application is with regard to the compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 10.7.2013, as modified in appeal by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh vide order dated 10.12.2013. The complainant has given very lengthy arguments in writing and also addressed oral arguments.  The complainant has emphasized that the OP has not obtained the permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter called the 1995 Act).  He argued that in absence of any permission of the competent authority, it is not possible for the complainant to get the sale deed executed. He argued that, till today, under the said Act, no permission has been obtained.  He argued that even though it is alleged that the permission under the Municipal Act has been obtained, but, that permission was obtained illegally and does not override the provisions of the 1995 Act and the OP is not exempted from obtaining permission under the 1995 Act.  He argued that until and unless permission is obtained by the OP under the 1995 Act, sale deed cannot be registered in the name of the complainant, even if he is ready to pay the stamp and registration charges.  He argued that even if some of the allottees succeeded in getting the sale deeds executed illegally, the complainant cannot be compelled to get the sale deed executed in his favour illegally.  The complainant also argued that the OP has failed to even comply with the other directions of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh as no community hall has been provided, sufficient car parking space is not provided alongwith other amenities. 
13.         The learned counsel for the OP argued that only 7 allottees, who are the complainants herein, did not get their sale deeds executed whereas all the remaining allottees have got their sale deeds executed.  He argued that as per the directions of the Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant has failed to deposit the stamp and registration charges and intimate the OP to get the sale deed executed.  This conduct of the complainant itself proves that he is not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour and intentionally, in order to harass the OP, has filed the present execution application. He argued that all the directions of the Hon’ble State Commission as well as the Hon’ble National Commission have been complied with and even the OP has moved the application to seek information from complainant as to which are the directions that have not been complied with. So, the execution application is liable to be dismissed.
14.         The Hon’ble National Commission in para 13 of its order dated 20.11.2014 gave direction to the complainants to approach the OP, to get the sale deed or conveyance deed registered within one month from the date of receipt of the order.  Complainants were further directed to pay the stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges.  It was further observed that to make the things easier for both the parties, after receipt of the order, the complainants would give a notice to OP-1 that they would be depositing all the above said charges i.e. the stamp duty, etc. and they would execute the sale deed within 7 days.  If there is any fault on the part of the OP, they will be liable to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day till the sale deed is executed.  Admittedly, the complainants (of all the above mentioned cases) have not deposited the stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges nor intimated the OP to express their readiness and willingness to get the sale deed registered.  On the other hand, an attempt was made by the OP to call the complainants to get the sale deed registered after doing the needful, but, without any success.
15.         The controversy which now requires determination is as to whether the OP was required to obtain the permission from the competent authority under the 1995 Act or as to whether by only obtaining permission under the Municipal Act, it has absolved itself from the duty and the complainants are bound to get the sale deed registered.
16.         It is pertinent to mention that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and similar is the position of the District Forum. Para 20 of the order of Hon’ble National Commission states that the order of the State Commission shall also be complied with. The entire order, except clause (ii), (iii) & (v) be strictly complied with.  The order of the Hon’ble State Commission has merged into the order of the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission has specifically observed that the entire order except clauses (ii), (iii) & (v) be strictly complied with because with regard to those clauses there are directions in para 13.  Clauses (ii), (iii) & (v) read as under :-

ii.       To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

iii.      To execute sale deed/conveyance deed, and get the same registered, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of completion and occupation certificates, on payment of stamp duty, registration fee, and other incidental charges, by respondent no.1/complainant.

v.       The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non-compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, Opposite Party No.1 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.

Clause (ii) is about completion of occupation certificate; clause (iii) about execution of the sale deed/conveyance deed and clause (v) is about non-compliance of the order of the District Forum.  Para 13 of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission provides guidance for compliance of directions No.(ii), (iii) & (v) of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission. Before the Hon’ble National Commission, the counsel for the petitioner (now OP) submitted that they were ready to execute the sale deeds. He explained that sale deeds to a few allottees have already been executed.  He alleged that the complainants were not approaching them for getting the sale deed executed. At this, the Hon’ble National Commission gave directions in para 13 of its order.  Before the Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant did not agitate that without the permission under the 1995 Act, he is not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed nor it was agitated that without getting the permission under the 1995 Act, the sale deed executed would be illegal.  Now this executing Court/Forum cannot go beyond the directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. Since the order of the Hon’ble State commission has been modified by the order of the Hon’ble National Commission, so, in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble National Commission, it is to be seen as to whether there has been compliance of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission or not?

17.         It is pertinent to mention that the OP has placed on the record a notification dated 17.9.2015 of the Govt. of Punjab Department of Local Govt., Town Planning Wing by virtue of which the ex post facto approval to the amended lay out plan of the OP was granted.  Thus, the OP has the approval under the TP scheme. The District Forum is not the competent authority to decide as to whether this permission was granted legally or illegally. If the complainant is aggrieved, he can approach the appropriate authority. Hence, the OP has the approval under the TP scheme for its scheme known as New Generation Apartments. The OP has also placed on record a copy of the occupation certificate dated 18.12.2015 issued in its favour. If the complainant is aggrieved by issuance of this occupation certificate, he can challenge the same at the appropriate Forum. Thus, it is proved that the OP has got its scheme sanctioned under the TP scheme.
18.         The OP has proved on record that it got the approval under the Town Planning Scheme under the Punjab Municipal Act, but, it failed to prove that it obtained the permission under the said 1995 Act.  Since directions No.(ii), (iii) & (v) were not to be complied with and the Hon’ble National Commission has given the directions in this regard in para 13 of its order, so, once the OP has obtained the permission under the TP Scheme, it was the duty of the complainant to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble National Commission with regard to deposit of stamp and registration charges. Had the complainant deposited the stamp and registration charges and then he was refused registration of the sale deed in his favour, only then the complainant could say that the OP has failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble National Commission. Since the complainant himself is at fault, so, he cannot raise the little finger at the OP. Even if the OP had not obtained the permission under the 1995 Act, then also the complainant was bound to follow the directions given in the order of the Hon’ble National Commission. The order is equally binding on the complainant.  The complainant has only the right to get the sale deed executed in his favour. He has also the right to the amenities as per the agreement. The complainant cannot dictate his own terms to get the sale deed executed in his favour. If the OP had not obtained the permission under the 1995 Act, it was the OP who was to face the consequences. The right of the complainant was only to get the sale deed executed and also to get the other amenities. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has failed to abide by the order of the Hon’ble National Commission to get the sale deed executed in his favour.  So, it cannot be said that the OP has not complied with the order or the OP was not ready and willing to comply with the order of the Hon’ble National Commission. The order of the Hon’ble National Commission sums up the grievances and the rights of the complainant in its order. The complainant cannot be allowed to agitate each and everything again and again, that too before the Forum executing the order. The OP has alleged that the directions with regard to payment of compensation etc. has already been complied with and there is no denial from the side of the complainant.
19.         Now coming to the facility of community hall, the District Forum vide order dated 10.7.2013 dealt with this proposition in para 25. It is mentioned that copy of advertisement in Hindustan Times – Annexure CD-1 nowhere shows that OP No.1 projected that community hall would be provided to the residents of Phase-III. The brochure – Annexure CD-2 of the Phase III also nowhere shows that OP No.1 made any promise of providing any community hall to the residents of Phase – III.   The copy of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Annexure CD-5 also does not show the provision of any such community hall. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case, the District Forum reached at the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service in this regard.
20.         While dealing with the issue of car parking, the District Forum in para 22 & 23 of its order dated 10.7.2013 observed that the complainant argued that as per Schedule VII of the building bye-laws, an area of 38.5 sq. yds. should have been allotted to him in the basement for car parking, but, he has been allotted a car parking space of just about 12 sq. yds.  The District Forum observed that the building bye laws referred to by the complainant were of the year 2007 while he took the possession of the apartment and car parking space in the year 2004. The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement Annexure CD-5 does not contain the dimensions of the car parking space for a resident. The District Forum observed that when the complainant had purchased a car parking space without any details of measurements, at this stage he cannot demand a car parking space of 38.5 sq. yds. on the basis of building bye laws of the year 2007 and it was held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. So, now the complainant cannot be allowed to agitate the same matter again in the present execution application. 
21.         So far as the commercial sites are concerned, there was nothing in the agreement that the commercial sites would be provided or the commercial market would be provided in the apartment. So, it cannot be said that there is any non-compliance by the OP. This executing court cannot go beyond the order passed by the District Forum and cannot exceed its jurisdiction.
22.         It is well settled law that a person who seeks equity must do equity.  The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  Rather, instead of getting the sale deed executed, the complainant has brought this execution application just to linger on the proceedings and to avoid the payment of stamp and registration charges. The District Forum in para 19 of its order dated 10.7.2013 specifically observed as under :-

“19.  …………. We are of the opinion that since the building plan of the apartment was approved by the NP Zirakpur and OP No.1 has already executed and got registered sale deeds of 120 apartments in favour of various allottees, the circumstances show that it is the complainant, who does not want to get the sale deed registered till the amended scheme is sanctioned by the Government of Punjab.”

After decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, the position is the same. The complainant, instead of getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour, has brought this execution application raising a number of unnecessary questions, which are not required to be decided or determined by the District Forum while exercising the jurisdiction in execution.

23.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is the complainant who is at fault and is not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour and the OP is always ready and willing to comply with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission. Until and unless the complainant abides by the directions of the Hon’ble National Commission in para 13 of its order, his execution application is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, all the execution applications, mentioned above, are dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.
24.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
21/06/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member		President