STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. R/78/2019
(Against the order dated 05-08-2019 in Execution Case No.
22/2005 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow )
Lucknow Development Authority
Naveen Bhavan, Vipin Khan
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
Through Secretary
...Revisionist
Vs.
- Sardar Kripal Singh
S/o Sri Balbeer Singh
- Rachpal Singh
S/o Sri Balbeer Singh
Both R/o House No. 642
Rajendra Nagar, Thana Naka
District Lucknow
...Opposite party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Revisionist : Mr. S N Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Muzeeb Effendi, Advocate.
Dated : 05-11-2019
ORDER
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
Present revision petition has been filed under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 05-08-2019 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in Execution Case No. 22 of 2005; Kripal Singh V/s L.D.A. arising out of judgment and order dated 04-06-2003 passed by District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No. 7 of 2000, Sardar Kripal Singh and another V/s Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority whereby District Consumer Forum has rejected application moved by revisionist who is judgment debtor/opposite party in above execution case.
Learned Counsel Sri S N Tiwari appeared for revisionist.
Learned Counsel Sri Muzeeb Effendi appeared for opposite party.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party has obtained judgment and order dated 04-06-2003 in above complaint Case No. 7 of 2000 fraudulently on the basis of forged document and
:2:
every Forum or Court has inherent power to recall order obtained by fraud. The District Consumer Forum has failed to exercise jurisdiction to stop execution of order obtained by fraud.
Learned Counsel has referred following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court to support his contention.
01.(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 476 Union of India and others V/s Ramesh Gandhi.
- A.I.R.(SC) 853 S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s Jagannath.
03.(1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 550 Indian Bank V/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
In above case of Union of India and others V/s Ramesh Gandhi Honourable Apex Court has held that the judgment obtained by fraud is nullity and is to be treated as non est by every court.
In the above case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s Jagannath Honourable Apex Court has held that non disclosure of material document regarding deed of release executed amounts to fraud on the court. Such decree is liable to be set aside.
In the above case of Indian Bank V/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Honourable Apex Court has held that the courts have inherent power to set aside order obtained by fraud practiced upon that court.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has opposed revision petition and contended that judgment and order dated 04-06-2003 has been passed in above complaint on merit after hearing both parties. Appeal filed against order dated 04-06-2003 passed by District Consumer Forum was dismissed by State Commission and the revision filed before Hon’ble National Commission against order of State Commission was also dismissed vide order dated 09-11-2016 passed by Hon’ble National Commission. Now the revisionist has set up a new case for avoiding compliance of order dated 04-06-2003 passed in complaint.
It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that the revisionist has filed written statement in above complaint wherein no averment has been made to the effect that the allotment letter or order is forged. In appeal filed before State Commission also there was no averment to the effect that allotment letter or allotment order was forged. Now the revisionist is
:3:
barred by principle of construction resjudicata to raise a new plea in execution case.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that the District Consumer Forum or State Commission has no power to recall or review order passed earlier as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others V/s Achyut Kashi Nath Karekar and another reported in IV(2011) CPJ 35(SC). Impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum has no illegality or irregularity to justify interference in revision.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
Indisputably above complaint No. 7 of 2000 has been decided on merits after hearing both parties. In written statement no averment was made regarding forgery of document produced. In appeal filed before State Commission against judgment and order dated 04-06-2003 passed by District Consumer Forum in above complaint also there was no plea of forgery of document. Appeal was dismissed by State Commission and revision filed before Hon’ble National Commission against order of State Commission has also been dismissed. Now in execution case revisionist has raised a new plea to the effect that the allotment letter or allotment order has been found false in enquiry and F.I.R. has been lodged accordingly. The order of District Consumer Forum has been obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged document. Therefore execution proceedings should be stopped.
In view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others V/s Achyut Kashi Nath Karekar and another (supra) the District Consumer Forum or State Commission has no power to recall or review order passed earlier.
Further more revision has been dismissed by Hon’ble National Commission. Therefore, in view of principle of judicial disclipine the District Consumer Forum and State Commission are incompetent to review order dated 04-06-2003 on the alleged ground of forgery. Revisionist is at liberty to approaoch Hon’ble National Commission in accordance with law.
Further more allegation of forgery may be decided by comptent criminal or civil court only. The District Consumer Forum cannot decide allegation of forgery. The District Consumer Forum has rightly refused to stop execution proceedings.
:4:
In view of above I find no sufficient ground to interfere in impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum. Revision petition is dismissed with liberty to approach competent civil court in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
