PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Challenge in these petitions is to the common order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal numbers 1118 of 2008 and 252 of 2009 filed by the parties of the complaint against the order dated 15.7.2008 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad in complaint case No. 337 of 2008. By the said order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, thereby directing the opposite party/Bank to return the original documents bearing Registration No. 558/1961 dated 25.3.1961 to the complainant forthwith, besides a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as the litigation cost of the -4- proceedings. The opposite party/Bank filed the appeal before the State Commission praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum while the complainants filed the appeal before the State Commission for upgradation of relief so granted by the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals upholding and affirming the order passed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the same, both sides have approached this Commission with the present proceedings. 2. We have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel representing the petitioner-Bank and Mr. M.V. Suresh, learned counsel representing the respondents-complainants and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaints are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. However, for disposing of the present petitions, shorn of unnecessary details, we may simply note that alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank in not returning the original deed of title, which the complainant had deposited with the bank in connection with the equitable mortgage created by the complainant in favour of the bank against certain loan taken by the complainant. The bank had obtained a preliminary decree for the due amount and then a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property -5- but failed to execute/pursue the same; still the bank withheld the documents of title on the ground that they had the lien over the said documents as they failed to realize the amount under the decree. 3. Counsel for the petitioner/Bank would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced on record and least it being in consonance with the settled legal position. On the other hand, counsel for the complainants would urge that the complainants besides the return of the titled documents are entitled to heavy compensation because they have suffered loss and injury due to the non-return of documents for all these years. 4. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that once the bank had pursued its remedy for the realization of the loan amount payable by the complainants and had obtained a preliminary decree and then a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property in which endeavor they finally failed, they have no right to retain the title deeds and their remedy was extinguished and at the same time their right to retain the documents was also extinguished. Complainants inform that they had been ready and are still willing to pay the amount of -6- decree granted by the Civil Court. The Decree dated 27th September, 1980 awarded by the civil court directs the complainants to pay sum of Rs. 60,000/- along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of the suit till realization. Counsel for the complainants, under instructions of the complainants in all fairness states that to bring an end to a long drawn controversy, the complainants are even non-willing to comply with the decree of the civil court by paying the reasonable amount to the petitioner-Bank. This seems to be an equitable and just solution of the problem, which the parties are facing at the moment. 5. In view of the above, the Revision Petitions of the parties are disposed of in the following manner: 6. The complainants shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Bank within a period of 15 days and on receipt of the said amount, the bank shall release the title documents to the complainants on the same day on which they receive the amount. -7- Parties are left to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings. | 
