ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—This Appeal Execution is directed against the interim order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 05.03.2020 in MA/07/2020, whereby the State Commission took cognigence under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and summoned the Appellant through bailable warrants of Rs.50,000/-.

2. Alongwith the Appeal, IA/2232/2021, an application for condonation of delay 131 has been filed by the Appellant. However, according to the Registry, there is a delay of 335 days. For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020, IA is allowed and delay condoned.

3. State Commission, vide order dated 23.08.2018 passed in CC/149/2015 observed as follows: -

“Therefore, complaint of the Complainant is allowed and directed that

1. Complainant’s registration, which was cancelled on 18.12.2014, is cancelled;

2. The Complainant be allotted house, as per merit of year 1982, on the rules, under which house to junior allottees have been allotted;

3. The Opposite Party shall pay to the Complainants Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation. Interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of complaint, i.e. 14.12.2015 shall also be paid.

4. That Opposite Parties shall make above amounts to the Complainants within two months from the date of order.”

4. Since the Opposite Parties failed to comply the aforesaid order, the Complainants/Decree Holders filed Execution Petition No.07/2020. State Commission, vide interim order dated 05.03.2020 observed as follows: -

“Arguments of the Counsel for applicants Advocate Sh. Aditya Mitruka are heard. File perused. On the basis of evidence a case U/s 27 of C.P. Act is prima facie made out against the Respondents No1 and 2. Therefore, cognizance is taken against them u/s 27 of C.P. Act. The respondents no. 1 and 2 are summoned through bailable warrants of Rs.50,000/-. The file is transferred to Bench No.2 for disposal. The parties will be present before that Bench on 09.04.2020.

5. Aggrieved by the interim order dated 05.03.2020, Appellant/Decree Holder has filed the instant Appeal.

6. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is a non-speaking order. It was submitted that the State Commission erred in passing the order dated 23.08.2018 in CC/149/2015, as the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of pricing of house or flat.

7. Impugned order of the State Commission in the Execution Appeal, passed way back on 05.03.2020, is only an interim order to secure the appearance of the Appellant/Judgment Debtor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is challenging order passed in Consumer Complaint No.149/2015 on the ground that the State Commission had no authority to go into the question of pricing of house or flat. If the Appellant was not satisfied with the order dated 23.08.2018, he could have as well challenged the same by filing an Appeal. In an Execution Appeal, the main order cannot be challenged. The Judgment Debtors have to comply with the order dated 23.08.2018.

8. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.