(1) THIS revisional application has been preferred challenging the order dated 29.1. 2007, as passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Alipore (hereinafter referred to as Forum), West Bengal in execution Case No. 17 of 2001 arising out of D.F. Case No. 357 of 2001.

(2) CASE of the petitioner is that in the year 2000, the opposite party submitted a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) alleging therein that the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 entered into an agreement on 9.6.1995 for purchase of two residential flats, as described in the schedule of the said complaint, for a total consideration of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The complainant alleged that he made payment of Rs. 2,68,000/- on different dates under proper receipts. In spite of such payment and the request by the complainant, the opposite party, the petitioner herein, failed to deliver possession of those flats by way of receiving the balance consideration amount. As such, the complainant had to file the complaint before the forum praying for appropriate reliefs.

(3) THE opposite party did not contest the case although, the notice was received by him. As such, the case was disposed of ex parte whereby the prayer of the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to deliver the flats in question in favour of the complainant by accepting the balance amount of consideration within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which liberty was given to the complainant to execute such order in accordance with law.

(4) AS against this, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission). After hearing the parties, the State Commission discussed the matter in detail by pointing out that in spite of service of notice, the O.P. /jdr did not prefer to contest the matter. The State commission further was of the opinion that as the appeal was preferred before it after the expiry of the statutory period, so it was not maintainable and consequently the appeal was rejected.

(5) AS against this, a revisional application being C.O. No. 3815 of 2005 was preferred before this Court when the learned Single Judge by his order dated 3.7.2006 was pleased to reject the revisional application and thereby did not interfere with the order, so passed by the State commission. Against this order, no further step was taken by the present petitioners. As such, the ex parte order, as was passed, attained finality.

(6) AS the present petitioners, did not comply with the order, so passed by the forum, so the complainant filed one execution petition which was numbered as Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. Although, notice was served upon the JDRs they did not take any step for compliance of the order so passed against them by the forum. As such, a prayer was made before the said Forum praying for delivery of possession of the flats in question through the Forum. When the matter came before the forum, then such prayer for delivery of possession through the agency of the forum was allowed on 29.1.2007 and it was directed that possession of those flats would be taken through the authorised person of the forum and in case of necessity with the help of police authority. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the forum, this revisional application has been preferred. Learned Advocate for the petitioners/jdrs argued that the order so passed by the forum is palpably illegal as there was a direction for attachment of the property in question, as provided under Section 25 of the Act. According to him, when such order was passed, at that time there was no provision for attachment under Section 25 of the Act and such provision came into existence only on 15.3.2003, after the impugned order was passed. As such, he claimed that the order of attachment, so passed by the forum was without jurisdic