Dr. Pradip Kumar Poria,

Sri Pran Krishna Poria, 17, L.M.C. Sarani, P.O. Buxara,  P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah.

------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sri Biplab Banerjee,

son of late Nilmoni Banerjee, Buxarah Fader  Road, P.O. Buxara, P.S. Jagacha, District –Howrah, Pin  – 711110.

2.      M/S. J.A. Construction,

having its office at 35/2/1, Bhattacharjee Para Lane,

P.O. Santragachi, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 184.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to deliver possession of the flat as mentioned in the schedule measuring 750 sq. ft. and to execute and register the deed of conveyance and for compensation of Rs. 1 lac  together with litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of the agreement dated 30-01-2009 followed by fresh agreement dated 20-09-2011 and after receiving amount of Rs. 5,42,120/- out of the total consideration money of Rs. 8,25,000/- did not act upon and execute and register the sale deed with respect to the suit flat.  

2.                  The o.p.no. 1 in his written version contended interalia that the power of

attorney granted to the O.P. no. 2 was revoked on 27-06-2012 as the O.P. no. 2 violated the agreement in between themselves i.e., between O.P. nos. 1 & 2.  

3.                  The O.P. no. 2 in spite of receipt of summons did not file any written version.

So the case was heard ex parte against him. 

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the

complainant entered into an agreement with O.P. no. 2 on 30-01-2009 followed by another agreement for sale on 20-09-2011 with similar terms and conditions at a total consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/- out of which Rs. 5,42,120/- was received by the O.P. no. 2. It was embodied in the agreement that the O.P. no. 2 shall supply the documents to the complainant for obtaining loan from the State Bank of India. But ultimately the O.P. no. 2 refused to supply the same placing the complainant in much difficulties. If the O.P no. 1 had any grievance against O.P. no. 2 with respect to their respective shares, the complainant must not suffer for such wrangling between O.P. nos. 1 & 2. If O.P. no. 1 was seriously aggrieved for the conduct of the O.P. no. 2, other legal Courts or Forum was open to the O.P. no. 1. He ( O.P. no. 1 ) did not prefer any other Forum for redress against O.P. no. 2. We are only concerned over the deficiency in service as committed by the O.Ps. upon the complainant for not providing the possession of the suit flat and not executing the deed of conveyance for the same. 

6.                  We are, therefore, of the view that it is a fit case where the prayer of the

complainant shall be allowed and  the O.P. no. 1 who revoked the power of attorney granted to the O.P. no. 2, disentitling the O.P. no. 2 to execute and register the deed of conveyance, shall be the confirming party of the registration and execution. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.     

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 66  of 2013 ( HDF  66 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest as against the O.P. no. 1 and ex parte against O.P. no. 2 with costs.

      The O.P. no. 2 be directed to deliver possession of the suit flat to the complainant and execute and register the sale deed with respect to the suit flat within 45 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount from the complainant.

      The o.p. no. 1 shall be the confirming party during execution and registration of the sale deed.

      Both the O.Ps. are directed to pay a compensation jointly and severally to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. 50,000/- each ) for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.

      The complainant is entitled litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- jointly and severally from the O.Ps.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.