HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order No. 19 dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/48/2022 whereby the stay application filed by the revisionists were rejected.

2. I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / opposite parties and also carefully perused the order No. 19 dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Learned District Commission, the ground taken in the memo of revision petition and the documents filed along with it.

3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is bad in law and the order was passed by the Learned District Commission without assigning any reason thereon. So, the Revision Petition should be allowed and the order passed by the Learned District Commission should be set aside.

4. I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the complainant Prof. (Dr.) Subhomoy Bhattacharjee filed a petition of complaint under section 12 read with section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the revisionists and Anr. praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) An order directing the Opposite Parties No. 1,2 and 3 to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in the name of the Complainant in respect of the Schedule Flat being Flat No. 3A at the 3^rd floor measuring about 1040 square feet super built-up area and two car parking spaces be little more or less at “VIKRAM UTPHULIA”, 29, Garia Gardens, Post Office, Garia being R.S. Dag Nos. 587 to 593 appertaining to R.S. Khatian No. 1174 of Mouza Barhans Fartabad, J.L. No. 47, P.S. Narendrapur (previous Sonarpur), in the District of South 24 Parganas within Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality, Kolkata – 700 084;

ii) An order directing to remove the padlock and Iron Chain in front of Collapsible gate and front entrance door of the Flat of the Complainant / petitioner;

iii) An order directing the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 to pay the complainant a reasonable compensation for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) only for inconvenience, mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant by the Opposite Parties for non-executing the registered Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant;

iv) Cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) only for litigation cost;

v) Any other relief or reliefs to which the complainant is entitled to law and in equity.”

5. The revisionists / petitioners entered appearance in this case and are contesting the case by filing written version. Subsequently, the revisionists / petitioners filed an application praying for staying of the proceeding and the said application filed by the revisionists / petitioners were rejected by the order impugned.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionists / petitioners have preferred this revisional application.

7. It appears on careful perusal of the record to me that the complainant / respondent No. 1 filed the consumer case claiming that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are land owners of the suit property. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have also admitted that they have filed a Title Suit being No. 117/2022 praying for declaration of title and injunction. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 / complainant has admitted the right, title and interest of the revisionists / petitioners over the suit property. Therefore, I think that the question of stay of the instant complaint case does not arise at all.

8. So, it appears to me that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.

9. In view of the above, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional petition is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

11. The Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission at once.

13. Office to comply.