The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct orders passed by subordinate Courts or tribunals that are wholly without jurisdiction, even if an alternative remedy exists.

HARISH TANDON, J.:

1. This revisional application is directed against order No. 9 dated. 10.1.2005 passed by the Kolkata District Forum in CPF Execution Case No. 49 of 2003.

2. Before dealing with the point urged by the respective counsels before this Court, it would be beneficial to narrate the brief facts of this case.

3. The petitioner-company is a fully owned Government company and carrying on the business of selling Canco Brand Power Tillers which is basically used for agricultural purposes. The opposite party approached the petitioner for purchase of one quantity power tiller and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as and by way of advance against Rs. 47,715/- being the cost of the tiller on 21.12.1989. Nearly after a gap of three years, the opposite party allegedly informed the petitioner by letter dated 26.9.1992 that he intends to take the delivery of the said power tiller. By this time the cost of the said power tiller increased to Rs. 64,567.30 paisa.

4. According to the petitioner, it duly informed the opposite party regarding the policy of the company that the price of the goods sold by the petitioner shall be paid by the purchaser prevalent at the time of delivery of the said goods.

5. After submitting an affidavit disclosing the fact of loss of money receipt which was given by the petitioner at the time of booking the difference of the price of the said power tiller was paid and the petitioner made the delivery of the same on 29.10.1992.

6. By a letter dated 27.7.1993 the opposite party claimed the delivery of the power tiller which created a suspicion in the minds of the petitioner who referred the matter to the hand writing expert and it transpired from the record of the hand writing expert that some persons impersonating himself to be opposite party took the delivery of the said power tiller. A complaint is lodged to the local police station. By that time the price of the said power tiller increased to Rs. 79,325/- and the petitioner offered the opposite party to purchase the said power tiller at that price. Instead of taking delivery of the power tiller by depositing the price prevalent at the relevant time, the opposite party approached the Consumer forum. The Consumer Forum disposed of the proceeding directing the petitioner to deliver the power tiller within a month at a price prevalent as on 27.7.1993. An appeal before the State Commissioner was also dismissed. The writ petition challenging the said order was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 15.9.2000 intimated the opposite party that the price of the said power tiller as on 27.7.1993 was Rs. 70,285/- and called upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 67,285 after deducting a sum of Rs. 3,000/- which was paid by the opposite party as and by way of an advance. The opposite party showed inability to take the delivery of the said power tiller.

7. The opposite party thereafter approached the District Forum and sought to execute the order. The executing Court by the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 47,985/- to the opposite party towards the unpaid balance amount for the purchase of the Canco Brand Power Tillers with its accessories by 18.2.2005. The petitioner has assailed the said order before this Court in this revisional application.

8. Mr. Kar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order which amounts to the variation of the original order which is sought to be executed by the opposite party in execution. In other wards it is contended that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.

9. Mr. Sandip Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the District Forum. He strenuously argued that there was an alternative ef