IMPORTANT POINT
Settled law that Executing Courts cannot go behind the Decree

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Appeal Execution has been filed by Mr. Nameesh Miglani (hereinafter referred to as Appellant/Complainant/Decree Holder) against the Order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the Decree Holder was directed to deposit the price of the flat, i.e., Rs.32,81,250/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from October 15th, 2009 till actual payment, within three months from the date of receipt of that Order and after receipt of the payment, the M/s. JMD Promoters Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/Judgment Debtor) was directed to handover the possession of the flat within three months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant/Complainant was allotted a Flat for Rs.32,81,250/- by the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor. As per terms of the Buyer’s Agreement, which was executed between the Parties on 22.07.2006, the possession of the flat was proposed to be delivered within a period of three and a half years from the date of sanction of building plans. The Decree Holder paid Rs.17,75,000/- to the Judgment Debtor from time to time upto 18.09.2006.Vide letter dated 15.10.2009, the Judgment Debtor cancelled the allotment of the Flat of the Decree holder as the Decree Holder did not pay the installments demanded vide letters dated 18.08.2006, 06.01.2007, 19.03.2007, 17.07,2007, 26.11.2007, 2.02.2008, 22.04.2008 and 24.10.2008 and deposited Rs.17,75,000/- paid by the Decree Holder in his account. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.10.2009, the Decree Holder sent two cheques of Rs.17,75,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively to the Judgment Debtor with a prayer to pay remaining amount including 18% interest for delayed period. But the Judgment Debtor neither encashed the said cheques nor pay any heed to the request of the Decree Holder. Alleging Deficiency in Service on the part of the Judgment Debtor, the Decree Holder initially filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. The Consumer Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the Complaint before State Commission. The Decree Holder filed Consumer Complaint before the State, which was allowed by the State Commission vide Order dated 31.07.2012 in following terms:-

“…..this Complaint is accepted, the cancellation of the flat of the Complainant is set aside with the direction to the opposite party to restore the allotment of Flat No. D-401, Fourth Floor, Super Area 1876 square feet (approximately) at the rate of Rs.1750/- per square feet for a total sum of Rs. 32,81,250/-. However, the opposite party can charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of installments, if any. However, at the same time it cannot be denied that the Complainant has suffered at the hands of the opposite party and therefore the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment which shall be paid by the opposite party without any further delay. Cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.11,000/-.”

3. Feeling aggrieved, the Judgment Debtor filed First Appeal No. 778 / 2012 before this Commission, which was dismissed vide Order dated 30.01.2013 by observing as under:-

“The delay of 109 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.”

4. The Order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the State Commission attained finality as the Special Leave Petition Appeal (Civil) No. 14970 f 2013, filed by the Judgment Debtor was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the liberty to the Judgment Debtor to move National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for filing Review Petition. The Judgment Debtor filed Review Application No. 2202 of 2013 before this Commission, which was also dismissed vide Order dated 22.07.2013.

5. The Decree Holder filed Execution Application No.