No. 2/31.01.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. Soumen Roychowdhury, the Ld. Advocate is present.  Mrs. Sima Adhikari, the Ld. Advocate files Vokalatnama on behalf of sole O.P.  

This revisional application is directed against the order dated 06.12.2010 as well as 14.01.2011 passed by the District Forum in the Execution Case No. 9/2009.  By order dated 20.03.2009 the complaint case was disposed of by allowing the complaint with direction upon the O.P., the Revisionist herein to take up unfinished construction work of the building at the suit premises within one month from the date of receipt of the above order of disposal of the complaint case and complete construction the work of the building within the stipulated period also upon payment as per the agreement by and between the parties.  The said O.P. has been further directed to make payment of Rs.40,000/- and 10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively within one month from the date of receipt of the said order, in default, the same would carry an interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till full realization. 

The Revisionist – JDR instead of complying with the said order of disposal of the complaint case approached the Executing Court for appointment of a Civil Engineer Commissioner for making an estimation as to the cost to be incurred for completing construction work of the building in the property in question.  In course of hearing of the revisional application it has also been alleged that the Decree Holder – O.P. did not allow the JDR – Petitioner to take up the construction work of the building so as to complete the unfinished work pursuant to the order of disposal of the complaint case.  Apart from making such wild allegation at the time of making this revisional application no evidence and/or material document was produced before the Executing Court to establish that the Decree Holder – O.P. refused entry to the JDR – Petitioner in the premises in question for the purpose of completion of the construction work pursuant to the direction given by the Forum below in disposing of the complaint case. 

Upon reading of the aforesaid order of disposal of the complaint case we are of the firm view that there is no scope for appointment of any Engineer Commissioner for the purpose of carrying out the direction given therein.  We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order dated 06.12.2010 rejecting the petition of the JDR – Revisionist for appointment of a Civil Engineer Commissioner for making an estimate as to the cost to be incurred by him for completion of the unfinished work in the building does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.  The order dated 14.01.2011 is the one whereby the Executing Court has directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against JDR – Petitioner for non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2010.  In course of hearing of this revisional application the Revisionist – JDR has failed to produce any order from any higher forum whereby the order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the District Forum has either been stayed or further proceeding of the execution case has been stayed.  In absence of such order the order dated as made by the District Forum on 14.01.2011 for non-compliance of the said order dated 06.12.2010 cannot at all said to have been made by any illegal exercise of jurisdiction or with any material irregularity.  Accordingly we do not find any merit whatsoever in this revisional application.  The same is, therefore, dismissed.