No. 18/04.10.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner is present through Ld. Advocate Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay.  O.Ps are absent on calls.

This revision case is arising out of judgement and order dated 11.08.2009 passed in the Execution Case No. 15/2006 by the concerned Forum.  The complaint case was finally disposed of on contest by judgement and order dated 06.03.2006 thereby by directing the O.Ps to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- for delivery of short area of constructed covered space of the flat in question to the Complainant deliberately even upon receipt of payment of the said amount for such covered space along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for causing needless harassment and mental agony to the Complainant within thirty days from the date of passing of the said order failing which, it has been observed that the same would carry interest @8% p.a. from the said date till the sums are realized in full by the Complainant.  This order has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble National Commission.  The Decree Holder has put the said order into execution in the aforesaid Execution Case No. 15 of 2006.  The JDR having deliberately failed to comply with the aforesaid order of disposal of the complaint case the Complainant was compelled to file a petition for issuance of warrant of arrest against the JDR.  At the hearing of the said petition the JDRs raised pleas to the effect that there was no short delivery of covered space as alleged by the Complainant and accordingly prayed for determining the said question by appointment of local Commissioner.  By the impugned order the said petition of the JDR/O.P. has been rejected.

We are in complete agreement with the impugned order.  The complaint case has been disposed of on contest by the concerned Forum and such disposal has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble National Commission.  At the execution stage the Executing Court cannot go beyond the order of final disposal of the complaint case that too which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble National Commission.  Since the complaint case has been finally disposed of by holding that the JDRs had delivered to the Complainant short area of covered space upon acceptance of the excess amount of Rs.3,80,000/- which have been found on question of fact, there is no scope for reopening of such an issue at the stage of the execution proceeding.

We are, therefore, of the clear view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the State Commission at this stage.  Hence, the revisional application is dismissed.