No. 4/30.07.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Rajesh Biswas, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Jamini Ranjan Ghosh, the Ld. Advocate along with Mr. S. K. Das, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Respondent No. 1 files BNA.  The appeal was filed against the order dated 30.03.2009 by the D.C.D.R.F., North 24 Pgs. in D.F. Case No. 153/06 whereby the Forum allowed the complaint passed the following order :

          “Hence, Ordered that the case be and the same is allowed in part”. 

“The O.P. is directed to assist the complainants enabling them to get their names mutated in the ‘Seresta’ of the Municipality”

“The complainants are entitled to get compensation for sum of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment including the cost of the suit case”.

“The O.P. is directed to pay the same amount within one month from the date of the order, failing which it would carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization”.

The Complainants have preferred present appeal contending that direction in Complainants’ favour by the Forum in the impugned order is in respect of mutation of the name in Municipality although Forum itself in the body of the judgement discussed about the actual relief i.e. obtaining Completion Certificate in respect of the building wherein the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants purchased the flat.

On behalf of the Respondent No. 1 Mr. S. K. Das, the Ld. Advocate points out that predecessor-in-interest of the present Complainants filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract on the basis of the Agreement between the parties for purchase of the flat and after the decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff in the civil suit the present Complainants cannot ask for relief on the ground of Completion Certificate as the same right, if any arose out of the same Agreement on the basis of which civil suit for specific performance was filed.

The Complainants – Appellants do not dispute the filing of the said civil suit and the scope thereof but the argument is that specific performance was obtained in respect of registration of the deed and, therefore, the proceeding before the Forum for the relief of Completion Certificate is maintainable.

We are unable to agree to the contention of the Complainants and we are of the opinion that the specific performance of the same agreement having been obtained, on the self same agreement the present relief as being asked for relating to Completion Certificate, cannot be asked.  Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.  We make it clear that we have not decided other questions relating to the judgement impugned.