DATE OF FILING                    :     21-08-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      18-09-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     31-07-2014.

Tarak Nath  Shaw,

son of Sri Laxmi Prasad Shaw,

residing at 42, Girish  Ghosh Lane, Ghusuri,

P.S. Malipanchghora, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711107.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sri Indrajit Das,

2.      Sri Biswajit Das,

3.      Sri Abhijit  Das,

4.      Sri Chiranjit  Das,

o.p. nos. 1 to 4 are sons of late Rabindra Mohan Das,

5.      Smt. Swapna  Ghosh,

6.      Smt. Sadhana  Ghosh,

both daughters of late Rabindra Mohan Das,

o.p. nos. 1 to 6 of 11 & 11/1, Daya Ram Naskar Lane,

Ghusuri, P.S. Malipanchghora,

District – Howrah,

PIN  – 711101.

7.      Sri  Dudh Nath  Sharma,

son of late Ranglal Sharma,

residing at 45, Bijoy Kumar Mukherjee  Road,

P.S. Golabari, Salkia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106.

8.      M/S. MAA SHREE TRINAYANEE BUILDER,

represented by its sole proprietor Sri  Dudh Nath  Sharma,

son of late Ranglal  Sharma,

residing at 45, Bijay Kumar Mukherjee Road, P.S.  Golabari,

Salkia, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106.  -----------------------------------------------------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 execute and register the deed of conveyance in his favour with respect to the schedule mentioned property and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh as the o.p. in violation of  the agreement dated 12-07-2006 and receiving a sum of  Rs. 1,50,000/- did not comply with the same.  

2.               The o.ps. in the written version contended interalia that the case should be dismissed as the complainant instead of preferring Appellate Forum against dismissal order of the ld.  Civil Judge, preferred this Forum for redress.   

3.                  POINT  FOR CONSIDERATION   :

Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Admittedly the complainant filed T.S. No. 164 of 2012 before the ld. 5^th  Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ), Howrah, seeking identical relief as prayed for in this complaint.  The reliefs were sought for against the o.ps. who are the defendants in the Title  Suit. After full-fledged hearing the same  Title Suit was dismissed on contest with the observation that the suit should be within the periphery of the breach of contract as per the Specific Relief Act. But the complainant instead of preferring Appeal before the superior forum challenging the judgment came before this  Forum for redress on 21-08-2013 i.e., subsequent to the order of the ld.  Civil  Court. 

5.               In this juncture Section 3 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986 cannot come into operation as there is clear cut findings of the ld.  Civil  Court on the self same issue.  The Forum cannot sit as an  Appellate Authority of the finding of the ld. Civil Court ( vide II ( 2006 )  CPJ 200 ( NC ).

           In the result, we are of clear view that the instant complaint is not maintainable. It requires to be dismissed.

           The point is accordingly disposed of. 

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 295 of 2013( HDF 295  of 2013 )  be and the same not being maintainable is dismissed on contest but without costs.    

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

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.