ANUPAM DASGUPTA These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 04.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in first appeals no. A/10/922 and A/10/923 filed by the original complainants who are the respondents here. 2. The relevant parts of the State Commission order are reproduced below: e are finding that against the order of dismissal of the Darkhast proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 without there being recovery of full amount, the appellants should have filed revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of execution application Nos.78 & 79 of 2007 passed by the District Forum. Instead of doing so they filed appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which section, original award passed by the District Forum is challenged by the party aggrieved. So, in our view appeals as filed by the appellants in both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, per se are not tenable in law. Both these appeals filed against the order passed in both the Darkhast proceeding Nos.78 & 79 of 2007 dated 11.05.2009 will have to be dismissed being not tenable. However, to do justice to the parties we invoke suo motu revisional powers under Section 17 (a) & (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because in this case Darkhast proceedings under Section 27 were dismissed without taking any punitive or coercive action against the judgment debtor who was supposed to deposit total amount of Rs.14,20,000/-. Out of total recovery amount of Rs.14,20,000/- in both the proceedings the judgment debtor had only deposited an amount of Rs.7,10,000/- and without ensuring full recovery of the amount of Rs.14,20,000/- the District Forum was pleased to dismiss both the Darkhast proceedings on being satisfied that the judgment debtor had deposited Rs.7,10,000/- and that those flats could not be mortgaged or sold by judgment debtor since on those flats decree holders had raised loan and Bank was not giving N.O.C. to the judgment debtor (Builder & Developer) to sell the flats. So, in the Darkhast proceedings the District Forum was more concerned with the rights of the builder developer than the rights of poor harassed consumers. Under award passed by the District Forum, Satara and confirmed by this Commission in appeal and Honle National Commission in Revision. As such both decree holders were supposed to recover amount of Rs.14,20,000/- but instead of helping them to recover that amount in the proceedings filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum was content with amount of Rs.7,10,000/- deposited by the judgment debtor covering both the Darkhast proceedings and was pleased to dismiss both the Darkhast proceedings and surprisingly directly office to return amount of Rs.10,000/- to the judgment debtor on his executing bank guarantee. This was done simply because the District Forum found that as per order judgment debtor was not in a position to sell the flats booked by the original complainants. The District Forum lost the sight of the fact that the complainants had spent their heard earned monies amounting to Rs.14,20,000/- covering both the complainants and under award they were entitled to get that amount from the judgment debtor with the help of District Forum in Darkhast proceedings. But instead of giving any help to the decree holders in both the Darkhast proceedings, the District Forum passed a very strange order and directed refund of Rs.7,10,000/-which amount should have been ordered to be paid to the decree holders and should have continued execution proceedings till last farthing was recovered by both the appellants from the judgment debtor. So, in the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed in both the Darkhast proceedings by the District Forum dated 11.05.2009 is erroneous, bad in law and it is passed without jurisdiction, without application of mind and therefore by exercising suo motu revisional powers we quash and set aside both the dismissal orders passed in Darkhast proceedings and restore them back to file and further direct District Forum, Satara to proceed with both Darkhast proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellants should be directed to file new complaint in terms of proforma circulated by State Commission, then to follow the further directions of this Commission to prosecute judgment debtor and to pass an appropriate order of sentence thereafter. In the circumstances, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Both appeals are dismissed (ii) However, by exercising suo motu revision powers, we quash and set aside the order passed by the District Forum dated 11.05.2009 in Darkhast proceeding Nos.78/2007 and 79/2007. (iii) Restore both the Darkhast proceedings back to file and direct District Forum, Satara to initiate Darkhast proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in terms of the new proforma submitted by State Commission and then deal with the prosecution of the judgment debtor strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Commission and if, he continues to ignore compliance of the awards passed by the District Forum in both the complaints which have been confirmed by the Honle National Commission, appropriate order of sentence be passed in both Darkhast proceedings. (iv) Both parties are directed to appear in the District Forum, Satara on 19.4.2011. 3. I have heard Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, which was the original opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (in short he District Forum and Mr. Pravin Satale, learned counsel for the respondents/caveators. 4. The main point raised by Mr. Deshmukh was that having dismissed the appeals of the respondents/complainants against the order of the District Forum, the State Commission erred in exercising suo motu its revisional jurisdiction under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (he Act without affording proper and formal opportunity to the petitioner to put forward its say against such exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He also pointed out that by ordering as it did in sub-para. (iii) of the operative part of the order, the State Commission over-stepped its jurisdiction and effectively decided the two execution petitions filed by the respondents/complainants, which were dismissed by the District Forum. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Satale stated that because of the dilatory tactics of the petitioner, the complainants had been prevented from recovering their heard-earned money from the petitioner for nearly 4 years and urged that the District Forum be directed to decide the execution petitions expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. The State Commission impugned order, though well intentioned, was misconceived, as would be obvious from the even a cursory perusal of the portion reproduced above. The appeals filed by the respondents/complainants were clearly permissible under section 27A of the Act and ought to have been decided on merits in accordance with the provisions of that section. There was thus no need to adopt the approach that the State Commission did. Moreover, sub-para. (iii) of the operative part of the State Commission order is ex facie so worded as to travel well beyond reasonable limits of exercise of its jurisdiction in a case like this. 7. Thus, the order of the State Commission cannot be maintained and is set aside. The State Commission is directed to decide the appeals of the respondents in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.10.2011 to receive further directions. Considering the delay that has taken place in finalising these matters, the State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeals of the respondents expeditiously, say, by the end of November 2011. The revision petitions are disposed of in the foregoing terms. 8. Copies of this order may be sent to the parties as well as the State Commission expeditiously.