Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainants/Decree Holders had jointly invested               Rs.2.24 Lac by taking 18 Fixed Deposit Receipts with M/s Schematic Finance Limited.  The said company defaulted in repayment on maturity.  Complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum

-2-

which was allowed on 18.1.2001.  The said order attained finality.  A provisional Liquidator was appointed on 14.2.2001.  Complainants, in order to recover the amount, filed two Execution Petitions and both were dismissed by the District Forum separately vide order dated 19.9.2001 and later on, on 25.9.2007.  Petitioners/Decree Holders filed an appeal before the State Commission which vide its order dated 09.12.2009 disposed of the appeal by observing thus:

      “4.     However, the grievance of the appellant can be redressed by allowing him to implead the respondents as Directors and directing the District Forum to decide the original complaint afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the respondents Directors for putting up their versions and all the contentions raised before us particularly because of fact that the official liquidator has already been appointed and, therefore relief, if any, can be availed before the High Court.

      5.      The complaint decided on 20.9.07 shall stand revived since respondent-4 has expired.  He was one of the Directors of the Company ad he was not made party nor he was the LR of the respondent-4.  The Lrs impleaded by the appellant at the first time stand deleted from the array of the parties.”

-3-

          Impression given from the reading of ‘PARA 4’ is as if the order passed in the original complaint dated 18.1.2001 had been set aside.  In ‘PARA 5’ the State Commission has observed that the complaint decided on 20.9.2007 shall stand revived.  Notice was issued to seek clarification as to whether the original complaint stands revived or the execution application has been revived.

          Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the order passed in the original complaint on 18.1.2001 could not and has not been set aside; only the order passed in the execution application has been set aside.

          In view of the statement made by counsel for the respondent, we clarify that the State Commission has not set aside the order passed in the original complaint, but only the order in the execution application.  The original complaint occurring in para 4 and 5 would read as “Execution Application decided on 20.9.2007 is revived”.  Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

          All pleas are left to the counsel for the parties.

-4-

            Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 25.11.2009.  District Forum is directed to decide the execution application within 4 months from the first date of hearing.