JUDGMENT :

Amit B. Borkar, J.

1. This case is illustrative of the difficulties, which a decree-holder has to encounter in recovering possession of immovable property in execution, after she has obtained decree of Competent Court. It is one of those cases, by no means rare, in which the execution proceedings have dragged down to inordinate lanes and led to consequent waste of public time and expense to the parties.

2. The crux of the matter involved between the parties is, as to whether the decree passed by the Consumer Court was inexecutable due to non-payment by decree-holder amount specified in the decree, within 30 days from the date of decree.

3. A brief recapitulation of facts would bring the matter in proper perspective for appreciation of issues involved.

On 12.1.1985, respondent no.1 entered into an agreement with the appellant-Developer for purchase of Block No.111 on the first floor of Satyam Apartments, situated at Wardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur, for a total consideration of Rs.95,000/-. Respondent no.1-decree-holder paid an amount of Rs.85,000/- to the Developer-appellant, but, in-spite of the said payment, neither Sale Deed was executed in respect of property in dispute nor the possession was handed over and, therefore, the decree-holder filed a Complaint bearing No.UTP-886 of 1993 before the Consumer Court in Nagpur, seeking relief of possession and execution of the Sale Deed. The Consumer Forum at Nagpur, on 3.4.1995 allowed the complaint of the decree-holder and directed the decree-holder to pay outstanding amount of Rs.10,000/- and M.S.E.B. charges. It was also directed that within one month of payment of Rs.10,000/- and charges of M.S.E.B., the appellant-Developer was directed to handover possession of shop premises complete in all respect. The Developer-appellant challenged the order passed by the Consumer Court, Nagpur, before the Consumer State Commission in Appeal No.889 of 1995 and the Consumer State Commission by its order dated 30.5.1996 was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the Developer. The Consumer Forum on 11.4.1996 issued a Certificate about non-satisfaction of its order and accordingly, Special Darkhast No.190 of 1996 came to be registered before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The appellant-Developer on 28.10.1996 filed an objection at Exhibit-13 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for dismissal of execution proceedings on the ground of failure to deposit amount as per the order of the Consumer Court. The Executing Court, by its order dated 7.7.1997, allowed the application below Exhibit-13 filed by the appellant-Developer and the Executing Court was pleased to hold that the decree-holder is not entitled to execute the decree and, therefore, dismiss the execution proceedings.

4. The decree-holder, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of execution proceedings, initially filed Civil Revision Application No.772 of 1997, which was subsequently withdrawn, with liberty to file Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal of execution proceedings. The decree-holder thereafter filed Writ Petition No.6123 of 2004 challenging the order dated 7.7.1997, thereby dismissing the execution proceedings filed by the decree-holder. After dismissal of execution proceedings, on 6.8.1997 the appellant-Developer sold the property in question i.e. Shop No.111 in favour of one Trilokchand s/o Birdichand Bhandari, the purchaser was made party-respondent no.4 to the Writ Petition.

5. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 16.10.2009 allowed Writ Petition No.6123 of 2004 and directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to deliver possession of the shop block within eight weeks from the date of order. It was also directed that respondent nos.1 and 2 shall pay compensatory costs of Rs.50,000/- to the decree-holder within eight weeks from the date of the order. It was made clear in the said order by the learned Single Judge that failure to deliver possession within the period prescribed by the lear