Harish Tandon, J.

Though the matter is directed to appear today, but due to inadvertence the same is not listed in today's list.

2. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today treating the same as on day's list.

3. This is one of the apparent examples, where the Executing Forum had gone beyond the decree.

4. A complaint petition was filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, North-24 Parganas, Barasat by the opposite party no. 1 against the other opposite parties praying for an order for completion of the registration process of the flat in question, the payment of interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month, the litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- and the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

5. Admittedly the said complaint case culminated into an order in favour of the opposite party no. 1. Alleging the non-compliance of the said order an execution case, being Execution Case No. 105 of 2011 is initiated by the opposite party no. 1 against the other opposite parties. It is undeniable that the Panihati Municipality, petitioner herein, was neither a party to the complaint case, nor was arraigned as judgment-debtor in the execution proceeding.

6. The orders passed in the execution proceeding reveal that certain report was asked from the Municipality, which was not submitted despite repeated directions passed by the Executing Forum. On one of such occasions, the Executing Forum thought that the non-compliance has come on deliberate and conscious disobedience of the directions. By the impugned order the Executing Forum directed the police authority to seal the office of the Panihati Municipality and further sought for compliance report on the returnable date.

7. Such a stringent order is passed against the Municipality despite being the fact that it was neither impleaded as party in the complaint proceeding nor in the execution proceeding. A third party cannot be made to suffer by an order of the Executing Forum; more so when there are neither a judgment-debtor nor a person claiming under the judgment-debtor.

8. It is inconceivable that failure to submit the report would attract such a drastic order. The order is passed in total disregard to the settled principle that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The order is, therefore, palpably illegal and cannot be allowed to stand for even a moment.

9. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 26th February, 2015 the constituents of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, North-24 Parganas, are personally present in Court today. They are duly represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, who at the very outset submits that such order should not have been passed by the Forum; more so when it has a far reaching consequences.

10. The order, which is apparently contrary to law, cannot be said to be an order passed in exercise of power conferred under the statute. There is no reason as to why this Court should not exercise power of superintendence enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when challenge is made to such orders, which cannot be conceived of in legal parlance.

11. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the Executing Forum to proceed with the execution case against the judgment-debtor in accordance with law.

12. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the Panihati Municipality assures this Court that responsible officer of the Municipality shall submit the report as sought by the Forum within a week from date.

13. On an assurance by Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General that appropriate steps are being taken, this Court do not delve further into the matter.

14. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.