Mrs. Sikharini Durta, Member—This instant complaint was disposed of by an order dated 22.1.93 for recovery of the sum of Rs. 74,147/- together with 12% interest per annum from 1.4.1988 to 30.8.1991 and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- additionally for the harassment caused to the complainant/petitioner.

2. The said order was put into execution in Execution S.C. Case No. 25 of 1993, when the execution proceeding was proceeded with and the writs of arrest was issued against them, the O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 4 appeared before this Commission and filed an application dated 11.10.1993 inter alia contending that the order dt. 22.1.1993 is an in executable order because it was passed ex parte against opp. parties of which the opposite party No. 3 died on 28.2.1992. It was further contended the order was a nullity on the face of it and it cannot be executed. Amongst other, it was further contended that it is a dispute between Landlord and Tenant and recovery of Rs. 74,147/- for alleged repairing of the tenanted premises which was let out to the complainant/petitioner.

3. On the basis of the said allegation this Commission by its order dated 17.1.94 recalled the order dated 22.1.1993 passed against the O.Ps. of which O.P. No. 3 had since been died long back on 28.2.92 before passing of the order dated 22.1.93. Considering that the order dated 22.1.93 being a nullity one, this Commission recalled the said order by its order dated 17.1.94 and directed the complainant/petitioner to take steps for substitution and the execution proceeding was stayed sine-die.

4. The complainant/petitioner contended that once the final order passed on 22.1.93 and was put into execution this Commission has no competency or jurisdiction to recall the order dated 22.1.93 as per provisions of Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. Even if the Opposite Party No. 3 died the execution of the order dated 22.1.93 could be proceeded with against the remaining opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The Counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that as the liability of all the opposite parties as determined by this Commission is joint and inseparable the entire order or decree stands nullity and it cannot be executed. Had there been the liabilities of the Opposite Parties several or specific in that event the order or decree could have been executed against the remaining opposite parties in execution of the dead person.

5. Lastly, the complainant/petitioner by a petition dated 16.8.94 filed before this Commission contended inter alia that the order dated 17.1.94 passed by this Commission is not sustainable and void on the ground that the order once passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is final and outside the jurisdiction of the same Court to revise, modify and recall the same and that such jurisdiction only lies with the High Court and/or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and that to accept the position of death of the O.P. No. 3 on 28.2.92 before passing the final order dated 22.1.1993 and if the order dated 17.1.94 is allowed to stand, it would be gross, miscarriage of justice and legally imprudent and that the order dated 17.1.94 recalling order dated 22.1.93 wrongly stated it was passed ex parte, although in fact the opposite parties filed a written submission through their Advocates before this Hon'ble Commission on 22.1.93 stating that the case does not come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but there was no mention whatsoever about the death of the O.P. No. 3 either on the date of the hearing or previous to the original order or any previous date. Accordingly the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 4 were responsible for misleading the complainant/petitioner and also this commission as such they do not observe any relief at a mere technicality and that if at all such relief was maintainable, the fact of the death of the O.P. No. 3 should have been intimated by O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on or before 22.1.93 to the pe