1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 7th July, 2007, passed below Exh. 13 in Special Darkhast No. 190/1996, by which the executing Court dismissed the execution proceedings filed by the petitioner.

2. In support of the writ petition, Mrs. S.S. Wandile, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions.

(i) The Executing Court committed a serious error of law in holding that the decree could not be executed for non performance/obligation on the part of the petitioner-decree holder in terms of the judgment & order dated 3/4/1995 in Complaint Case No. UTP-886/1993, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur.

(ii) Reading of the operative part of the order of the Consumer Forum clearly falsifies the stand taken by the respondent No.1 & 2 -builder and the Court below erred in misreading the said judgment & order in a totally illegal manner.

(iii) Executing Court committed a serious error in holding that the communications allegedly sent by respondent nos.1 & 2 - builder under certificate of posting were deemed to have been received by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, there is a stout denial by the petitioner about non receipt of a single communication in respect of compliance required to be made under order dated 3rd April, 1995, made by Consumer Forum, and in the face of denial, the Court below could not have readily accepted the submissions made by the respondent nos.1 & 2-builder.

(iv) The respondent nos.1 & 2 -builder having accepted the order of the Consumer Forum in entirety and the petitioner admittedly having paid an amount of Rs.85,000/-and the balance only being Rs.10,000/- plus electricity charges of Rs.11,000/-, the normal conduct of the respondent nos.1 & 2-builder would have been to inform the petitioner by registered post A/D, rather than doing so under a certificate of posting, particularly because of the background of litigation. The fact that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 - builder is pleading the case of dispatch of communication under certificate of posting itself discloses the tactful way adopted by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 -builder by showing nonexistent correspondence.

(v) The respondent nos. 1 & 2-builder sold the suit property even before the expiry of limitation for filing civil revision application, to respondent no.4, which clearly shows the malafide intention of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 –builder and the greed of the respondent nos. 1 & 2- builder.

(vi) The respondent- builder has clearly cheated the petitioner and the net result of his unlawful activities is that the petitioner though had paid Rs.85,000/- out of Rs.95,000/-way back in the year 1985 is still without the suit block. She relied on the following decision of the Supreme Court. (2006) 1 SCC 407, State of Maharashtra vs. Rashid B. Mulani.

3. Mr. D.L.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 made the following submissions and also filed a brief note of argument styled as Pursis along with the citations. He made the following submissions.

(i) The award made by Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction because dispute was in respect of office/shop which could be utilized only for commercial purpose. The shop in question could not be said to have been agreed to be purchased by the petitioner for earning livelihood as she is employed in Government Medical College and therefore, she is not a consumer.

(ii) The issue regarding jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and therefore, this court ought to consider the said issue, though for the first time in this petition. He relied on the following decisions.

(a) (1996) 9 SCC 422; Rajeev Metal Works and others ..vs. Mineral & Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Para 6 & 7

(b) AIR 1995 SC 1428; Laxmi Engineering Works ..vrs.. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, Paras 2, 12 and 24

(c) (2000) 1 SCC 512; Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust ..vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and another, Para 9