ORDER

M.A. No. 295 of 2021 in R.P. No. 4512 of 2012

1. The miscellaneous application no. 295 of 2021 seeks recall of this Commission’s Order dated 02.11.2021 vide which the revision petition no. 4512 of 2012 was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the relevant material including inter alia the Order dated 02.11.2021 and the miscellaneous application no 295 of 2021.

3. For ready reference the Order of 02.11.2021 is reproduced below:

Dated: 02nd November 2021

ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

1. Called out several times. No one appears for the petitioner, who was the opposite party no. 2 before the District Commission.

The respondent no. 1, who was the complainant before the District Commission, is present in person.

The respondents no. 2 and no. 3, who were the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 3 before the District Commission, are ex parte vide Order dated 18.12.2014.

2. This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.07.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 812 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 25.05.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 27 of 2011.

3. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 25.05.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 25.07.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.

4. The District Commission vide its Order dated 25.05.2012 had partly allowed the complaint. It had made the following award:

1) The application of the complainant was partly allowed.

2) The opponent No.1 to 3 should execute a Registered Sale Deed as per the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale executed on 05/06/2008 and accept the remaining amount.

3) It was agreed in the Agreement of Sale that, required stamp, registration fee etc will be spent by purchaser. But since 2008 to till today the stamp and registration fee have been increased in triple and the complainant will have to suffer it without any fault. Therefore, whatever expenses will be incurred for execution of Sale Deed, those will be borne equally by complainant and opponent No. 1 to 3.

4) The opponent No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation, mental harassment and cost of proceedings.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.07.2012 had dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. In dismissing the appeal with cost it had inter alia made the following observations:

[10] Upon taking into consideration the case of the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant, order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. We do not find any substance in the present appeal. However, we do not want to part with this order by simplicitor dismissing the appeal. What is important to be noted is the fact that agreement to sale was executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant on 5/6/2008 and as per the said agreement, flat and property is to be given to the Respondent No.1 / Complainant. However, ever after lapse of so many years it is still not given to the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant and the Respondent No.1 / Complainant was required to file a consumer complaint after having obtained an order from the District Forum and when the partnership firm and the other partner of the partnership firm have acquiesced to the order passed by the District Forum, Appellant / Opponent No. 2 who is one of the partners of the firm on flimsy grounds has preferred this appeal just to protract the litigation and to harass the consumer. We do not want to encourage such kind of litigations and, therefore, in order to curb such types of litigations we have to deal with iron hands and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal by imposing costs of ‘25,000/- which shall be deposited by the Appellant / Opponent No. 2 into Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of thirty days from today. Upon failure on the part of the Appellant / Opponent No. 2 to deposit the costs within t