IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal Execution – The impugned Order against which the present Appeal Execution has been filed cannot be termed to be an Order passed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at all.

ORDER

These three Appeals (Executions) No. 84 of 2018, No. 85 of 2018 and No. 86 of 2018 have been filed under section 27A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to a common impugned Order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the State Commission in I.A. under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedures (CPC) moved during the course of the E.A.s (Execution Applications) No. 06 of 2014, No. 07 of 2014 and No. 08 of 2014 arising out of three separate Orders dated 24.05.2012 passed in Consumer Complaints No. 223 of 2010, No. 224 of 2010 and No. 225 of 2010.

2. It appears that three(3) separate complaints No. 223 of 2010, No. 224 of 2010 and No. 225 of 2010 were filed by the complainant-M/s. Aslam Carpets Pvt. Ltd. before the

State Commission which were allowed vide its separate three Orders dated 24.05.2012 wherein the opposite parties were directed to deliver the possession and execute the

registered sale deed in respect of schedule immovable property in favour of the complainant within eight weeks from the date of

receipt of the Order along with the cost of proceedings of the complaints of Rs.5,000/- in each case.

3. In order to get executed the said Order(s), the complainant-M/s. Aslam Carpets Pvt. Ltd. have filed three (03) separate E.A.s (Execution Application) No. 06 of 2014, No. 07 of 2014 and 08 of 2014 before the State Commission. During the pendency of the aforesaid Execution Applications, applicants-N. Muthappa Rai (Since Deceased) through his legal heirs & Anr. filed the I.A.s under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedures (CPC) to implead themselves as objectors to restrict and obstruct the complainants / D.H.s in obtaining the possession of the subject property in question, which were dismissed vide common impugned Order dated 27.02.2018.

4. Being aggrieved, now these three (03) Appeals (Executions) have been filed by applicants-N. Muthappa Rai (Since Deceased) through his legal heirs & Anr. before this Commission. Since the grounds pleaded in all these memo of appeals are also identical and same, these three (3) Appeals (Executions) are hence being decided by this common Order. The Appeal (Execution) No. 84 of 2018 is being taken as a lead case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record including inter alia the common impugned Order 27.02.2018 passed by the State Commission and the interlocutory applications (I.A.s) moved under Order 21 and Rule 97 of the C.P.C. by the applicants and the memo of appeals.

6. It appears that the complaint was filed by the respondent / complainant which was allowed by the State Commission and the following award was passed:

ORDER:

Complaint filed by the complainant is allowed. The Ops are directed to deliver possession and execute registered sale deed in respect of the schedule immovable property in favour of the Complainant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of this proceedings to the Complainant.

7. In order to get the aforesaid Order executed the execution application was moved which was pending before the State Commission, the executing forum. During the pendency of the same, application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC seems to have been filed by the appellant seeking to implead themselves as objectors to resist and obstruct the Complainants / D.H.s in obtaining the possession of the subject property in question. Both the sides were heard and the State Commission did not find any merits in the application and found it fit to reject the same. In Order to facilitate better appreciation and put the things in perspective, the Order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the State Commission may be quoted herein below which read as follows:—

27/02/2018

Common Order on I.A.

As in all the three execution petition Nos. 6, 7 & 8 all of the year 2014 similar application is filed and similar objections are taken up by the decree holders, all the three applications are taken up together