No. 7/29.03.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. Raj Kumar Maji, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 through Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 files Vokalatnama.

This revisional application has been filed against the judgement and order dated 12.04.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 4/2008 by the Forum below.  Evidently the complaint case filed by the Revisional Petitioner was disposed of by judgement and order dated 24.10.2007 by the concerned District Forum with a direction upon the O.P. as under :-

(a)      to release the vehicle No. WB-23A-8541 along with all documents and loaded goods therein to the complainant.

(b)     to intimate the complainant in writing the actual outstanding dues of EMI as on the date of seizue i.e. on 11.10.2007 and allow the complainant to repay the said outstanding amount in three monthly instalments.

(c)     to supply an authentic copy of loan agreement duly signed by both parties.

(d)     to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss of service and mental agony and suffering meted to him by OPs during this time.

(e)      to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for litigation cost.

All such directions were to be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest @ 12% would be levided upon the total amount as described above till final payment was made. 

The said order was confirmed in appeal by the State Commission with further modification as under :-

“The appeal is dismissed on contest with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to be so paid by the Appellant to the Respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this judgement and order.  The impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below is affirmed.  The order of the Ld. Forum below along with the payment of cost as ordered now will be required to be paid and performed within a period of 30 days from the passing of this judgement and order failing which the Appellant would be required to pay further a sum of Rs.500/- per day for the period of default”.

In these state of affairs the said order of disposal of the complaint case was put into execution by the Revisional Petitioner – Decree Holder in the aforesaid Execution Case No. 4/2008.  In the said execution proceeding the JDR by producing a letter on the basis of which the vehicle in question was purportedly released in favour of one Hira Singh by the JDR, took the plea that the vehicle in question has already been returned to the Decree Holder – Revision Petitioner.  On the contrary, the Decree Holder – Revision Petitioner has strongly denied and disputed the fact of release of the vehicle in question to said Hira Singh.  It has been further alleged by the Decree Holder – Revision Petitioner that the letter, if any, produced by the JDR purportedly showing return of the said vehicle to said Hira Singh was on the forged signature of said Hira Singh.  Be that as it may, on the issue as to whether the vehicle in question had been released in favour of the Decree Holder – Revision Petitioner or not, it appears from the records of this case that several proceedings have been drawn under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  It further appears that the Hon’ble High Court by its judgement and order dated 05.01.2009 passed in AST No. 17 of 2009 has directed an investigation by the Chakulia Police Station in the District of Uttar Dinajpur on the petition filed by the JDR treating the same as FIR.  Upon consideration of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court it is evident that the subject matter of investigation by the Chakulia Police Station involves question as to who is the author of the said letter and in whose custody the vehicle in question is lying, if it is not lying in the custody of the owner of the vehicle.  If that be the question involved in such police investigation then the question as to the return of the vehicle in question by the JDR to the Decree Holder cannot be decided at this stage.  Therefore, we do not find any illegality and/or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the District Forum in making the impugned order.  The revisional application, therefore, does not have any merit whatsoever.  The same is accordingly dismissed.