The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to restore possession to the petitioner following the reversal of the parent award and subsequent police help order.

JUDGMENT :

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :-

1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises against an order dated June 30, 2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on contest, whereby both the orders impugned therein were set aside. Two separate appeals had been preferred before the Commission. First Appeal No. A/885/2019 was filed against an award passed by the District Forum on February 28, 2014, whereby the opposite party no.1 obtained an award against the opposite party no.2 for possession, in the alternative refund of the consideration money allegedly paid by the opposite party no.1 to the opposite party no.2 in respect of the disputed property. The other appeal bearing no.A/3/2020 was preferred against an order bearing Order No.50 dated September 26, 2019, whereby police assistance was directed for the opposite party no.1 to get possession of the property-in-dispute.

2. The short background of the case is as follows:

3. The opposite party no.1 filed a complaint before the consumer forum, giving rise to CC No.10 of 2014, alleging that, despite having entered into an agreement for sale of the disputed property in favour of the opposite party no.1, the opposite party no.2 had refused to honour the same.

4. Ultimately, the opposite party no.2 did not contest the proceeding and on February 28, 2014 an award was passed directing delivery of possession in favour of the opposite party no.1, in the alternative for refund of the consideration money.

5. On June 16, 2016, the present petitioner purchased the disputed property from the original owner and an alleged constituted attorney of the owner by a registered deed.

6. In the meantime, EA 251 of 2014 was initiated by opposite party no.1 against the opposite party no.2 for execution of the award dated February 28, 2014. On December 19, 2016, the executing forum directed an Advocate Commissioner to execute a registered deed of conveyance in favour of the opposite party no.1 on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Further, the police was directed to hand over possession of the disputed flat to opposite party no.1

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the executing forum, an Advocate Commissioner executed and registered a sale deed in favour of the opposite party no.1 on July 4, 2017, that is, subsequent to the purchase deed of the present petitioner.

8. The matter dragged on, since the present petitioner was in possession of the flat and such possession could not be handed over to the opposite party no.1. A police report filed in the execution proceeding was considered vide order no. 33 dated May 31, 2018 by the executing forum, which reflected that the husband of the present petitioner, namely, Dipankar Sarkar, was residing in the said flat. The opposite party no.3 had handed over possession to the petitioner’s husband by a registered deed, which was also recorded in the order dated May 31, 2018. By the said order, the opposite party no.2 was directed to refund the consideration money taken from the opposite party no.1 and a warrant of arrest was issued against the opposite party no.2 to implement execution.

9. On August 30, 2019, opposite party no.1 made an application in EA 251 of 2014 to recover possession from the petitioner’s husband in respect of the suit flat, where the petitioner also resides.

10. Vide Order No.50 dated September 26, 2019, on the ground that the warrant of arrest against the opposite party no.2 could not be executed, the executing forum directed the police to assist the opposite party no.1 in getting possession of the disputed flat.

11. Pursuant thereto, on October 18, 2019, the opposite party no.1 put her own padlock over the petitioner’s padlock on the entrance of the flat with police help.

12. It is contended by the petitioner that the executing forum acted beyond jurisdiction in directing delivery of possession in favour of the opposite party no.1, since its charter was limited to executing the