1.      Sri Dhirendra Kumar,

son of late Jagdish Mandal.

2.      Smt. Sangita Kumar,  

wife of Sri Dhirendra Kumar,  

residing at flat no. F-5, ( 3rd  floor ),

Block No. B, ‘Cosmic Enclave’,  

355 to 357 G.T. Road ( South ),

P.O. B. Garden, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711103.--------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sri Vijay Kumar Birla,

s/o. Sri Padhey Shyam Birla,

residing at ‘Aasha Apartment’,

flat no. 1/C6, P.S. Tollygunj,

93, Deshpransasmal Road,

Kolkata – 33.

2.      Sri Raman Kumar Agarwal,

s/o. Sri Satya Narayan Bidwaktha,

at 17/17, Hat Lane, P.S. &

District – Howrah,

3.      Smt. Manjushree Chatterjee,

4.      Smt. Malabika Sanyal,

5.      Sri Avijit Chatterjee,

6.      Sri Amitava Chatterjee,

no. 3 to 6 are legal heirs of

lt.  Amiya Kr.  Chatterjee.

7.      Sri Joydev  Chatterjee,

8.      Sri Buddhadev  Chatterjee,

9.      Smt. Sukla Mukherjee,

all are residing at 355 to 367,

G.T. Road ( South ), P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 3.

10.  Smt. Subhra Chatterjee,

residing at village & P.O.  Duilya,

P.S. Sankrail,  District – Howrah,

PIN – 711313. ----------------------------------------------------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.                  By virtue of this complaint the complainants initially prayed for direction upon

the O.Ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the schedule mentioned flat together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/-.

2.                  The o.ps. contested the complaint by filing the written version.

3.                  In the midst of trial the parties arrived at a settlement and consequent on the

compromise, the complainants sent a letter  dated 09-10-2013 to the O.Ps. with undertaking that the petition of complaint would be withdrawn in case the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat is registered by the O.Ps.

4.                  Pursuant to the undertaking by the complainants the O.Ps. caused execution

and registration of the deed in question.

5.                  When the main purpose ( execution and registration ) has been served,  the

complainants now come up with the rest of the prayers i.e., compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- conveniently brushing aside the terms of the undertaking dated 09-10-2013 to withdraw the complaint.            

     6.          One cannot blow hot and cold at the same breath. The complainants once undertook to withdraw the complaint if the O.Ps. were agreeable to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants with respect to the schedule mentioned flat and when the said purpose has been served and the O.Ps. as per assurance of the complainants caused execution and registration of the deed, the complainants took an opportunistic stand. They have come up with the prayer for direction upon the O.Ps. to pay compensation and litigation costs. This is altogether funny. This Forum being at once a court of law and court of equity cannot entertain such malafide prayer . The letter dated 09-10-2013 carries the terms with no ambiguity  that the entire complaint shall be withdrawn if the O.Ps. caused registration and execution of the deed. This is just an attempt to fleece the money from the O.Ps. who reposed faith on the undertaking of the complainants over withdrawal of the entire complaint. In our considered opinion this ought to have been a fit instance where the complainants ought to have been saddled with a heavy cost for misleading the court as well as O.Ps. However, we are not going to take such stern steps to penalize the complainants for ends of justice. We are precisely of the opinion that the complaint at the present stage is fit to be dismissed.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 20 of 2013 ( HDF 20  of 2013 )  be  dismissed on contest as against the O.Ps. but in view of the circumstances without costs.

      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.