DATE OF FILING : 09-10-2013. DATE OF S/R : 17-12-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 21-04-2014. Sri Raj Kumar Shaw, son of Methailal Shaw, residing at 14/1, Ashu Bose Lane, P.O., P.S. & District – Howrah, PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. M/s. Treekal Construction Co. a proprietorship firm represented its proprietor Mr. Netai Tarfdar, son of late Gopal Tarafdar, having it office and residence at 27/40, B.K. Pal Temple Road, P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Belur, District - Howrah, PIN – 711202. 2. Smt. Mithu Basu, wife of Sri Bijan Basu, residing at 33/3, Rajen Seth Lane, P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Belur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711202. 3. Smt. Kaberi Ghosh, wife of Sri Bhaskar Ghosh, residing at 12, Rajen Seth Lane, P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Belur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711202.-----------------------------------------------------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 the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat as mentioned in schedule ‘B’ or alternatively to pay a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs being the present price of the flat and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs together with other costs as the o.ps. in violation of the agreement dated 05-03-2009 and in spite of receiving major portion of the consideration money did not execute the same on the pretexts of civil litigation. 2. The o.ps. in their written version contended interalia that several title suits are pending before the ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Howrah, and the execution process cannot be proceeded in view of the injunction passed by the civil court. 3. 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 : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly T. S. No. 225 of 2013 and 200 of 2013 are pending before the ld. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ) 1st Court, Howrah, over the self-same matter. The injunction order has been extended time to time and is in force till 09-04-2014 with respect to the A-1 property which is the subject matter of the complainant. In the instant case, Section 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 cannot be invoked in view of specific direction of the ld. Civil Court. 5. As the o.ps. already received the major portion of the consideration money and the disposal of the civil litigation shall take considerable time for disposal, the o.ps. who received the amount shall be liable to refund the same to the complainant together with interest. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 369 of 2013 ( HDF 369 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed in part as against the o.ps. with costs. The O.Ps. jointly and severally be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ Rs. 10% p.a. since December, 2012 till full satisfaction within 30 days from the date of this order, failing the amount shall carry interest @ of Rs. 18% p.a. The o.ps. do further pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the complainant for causing mental pain, harassment and frustration to his dream for a flat and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs. 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. | 
