HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

No. 1/08.10.2009.

Heard Mr. Swarajit Dey, the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.  The grievance is against the order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the District Forum Calcutta Unit – II in Execution Case No. 34 of 2008.  The first contention of the Ld. Advocate is that the Forum in the impugned order acted wrongly in directing payment of interest @ 9% per annum for the period default beyond the period of 45 days and the contention of Ld. Advocate is that in the original order of the State Commission in the earlier appeal the expression ‘beyond the period of 45 days’ is not available and, therefore, the Forum was wrong.  We have considered the order of this Commission and it appears that the State Commission also directed payment of further 9% interest if the payment is not made within 45 days from the date of communication.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the contention of the Petitioner is not acceptable and the Ld. Forum used correct expression in the background of above facts.  The further contention of the Ld. Advocate is the last sentence of the order wherein Section 279 of the C. P. Act has been mentioned.  We have no doubt this is a typographical mistake and the section should be read as 27 instead of Section 279.  There being no other irregularity alleged we do not find any further interference is required and the revision petition is thus disposed of.