ORAL ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.Sanjay Mhatre-Advocate for the revision petitioner. Mr.G.J.Mohanrao-Advocate for Respondent nos.2 to 5. Respondent no.1 and their counsel absent. Respondent no.1 is already served. Matter is heard in absence of respondent no.1.
This revision petition is directed against the order passed in Execution application no.12/2010, Shri Residency Co-op.Hsg. Society Ltd. v/s. M/s.Shree Constructions & others; by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. As per the impugned order, after observing that the monetary part of the order passed in consumer complaint no.80/2008 on 07/03/2009 was already complied with, Forum proceeded to give a direction in respect of execution of conveyance. However, not satisfied with the direction and the action taken, executant filed this revision petition.
Heard both the sides finally with consent of both the parties.
In the instant case, when we look to the application for execution, the copy of which is placed on record, we find that it is not made clear therein under which provision i.e. section 25(3) or section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, executant wants to proceed with the application. Issue is already covered by this Commission’s decision in the matter of Amir Ali Tharani V/s.Rajesh Sukhtankar & another reported in II (2011) CPJ 23. Since the monetary part of the impugned order under execution was already complied with, per se, no application under section 25(3) of the Act could be made. Therefore, in respect of other directions given including direction of execution of conveyance, the execution application if so desired by the executant, is to be proceeded only u/sec.27 of the Act and it is for the forum on such request made on behalf of the executant to proceed accordingly viz. to take cognizance of the offence and then follow the procedure as prescribed for a summary trial. Both the parties requested that they would address the forum accordingly and sought remand of the matter. We find that since the forum did not follow the procedure prescribed, the direction given to execute the conveyance is per se illegal and, therefore, in light of the submission made by both the parties, it would be proper and just to set aside the impugned order dated 24/11/2010 and remand back the matter to consider the aspects referred earlier. Hence we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Revision petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 24/11/2010 is set aside.
Execution application bearing no.12/2010 is remitted back to the forum in light of the observation made in the body of the order.
Both the parties shall appear before the forum on 03/10/2012.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 10th September, 2012.
