1.      Bablu Adak,

s/o. Lt. Joydeb Adak,

30, Dharanidhar Mullick Lane, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

2.      Sm. Anita Adak,

w/o. Bablu Adak,

30, Dharanidhar Mullick Lane, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101. -------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Riazul Haque,

s/o. lt. Anaral Haque,

24/2, Jolapara Marjid Lane,

P.O. & District –Howrah,

PIN  – 711101.

2.      Md. Nasim,

s/o. Lt. Hanif,

24/2, Jolapara Marjid Lane,

P.S. + District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

3.      Smt. Lakshi  Ghosh,

w/o. Biswarath  Ghosh,

19/2, Brindabon Mullick Lane,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to make over possession of the flat and to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the agreed flat at 19/2, Brindabon Mullick Lane, Howrah, as the O.Ps. in spite of repeated requests and receiving a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 4 lacs  did not comply with the stipulations of the agreement dated 31-12-2009.   

2.                  In the written version O.P. nos. 1 & 2 contended interalia that they cannot be

any dispute over making over the key of the flat to the complainants if the balance amount is paid.  

3.                  Notice was served upon O.P. no. 3. None appears on behalf of O.P. no. 3, so

the case was heard ex parte against O.P. no. 3.

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 complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the

complainant paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 as part payment of the total consideration money as per the agreement dated 31-12-2009. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are ready to make over the key and to execute the deed of sale to the complainant on payment of the rest amount as per their written version. Accordingly, we are of the view that 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.  113 of 2013 ( HDF 113 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on  contest with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte without cost against O.P. no. 3.    

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to  make over the key of the flat as per agreement and to execute and register the deed of conveyance within one month from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainants.     

      The complainants are entitled to the litigation costs of  Rs 3,000/- from the O.P nos. 1 & 2.

      No order as to any compensation.

      The complainants are 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  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.