STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH ASANSOL APPEAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. SC/CB1/19/AEA/1/2023 MR. PARTHA SARATHI ROY PRESENT ADDRESS - SADHANPUR KALITALA, NEAR M.B.C. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, DIST.- PURBA BARDHAMAN, PIN- 713101 ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus MR. DILIP KUMAR SARKAR PRESENT ADDRESS - 134A GOALGHAR, SARADA PALLY, NEAR KALIMANDIR, P.O. & P.S.-

BURDWAN, PURBA BARDHAMAN ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

SUBRATA GHOSH (Advocate) FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY: Santi Ranjan Hazra (Advocate)

DATED: 27/02/2025

ORDER

Order No. : 11 DATE : 27.02.2025 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in EA/51/2014 arising from the judgement of CC/121/2012 dated 18.07.2014, the JDR of EA/51/2014, Partha Sarathi Roy, being the OP of CC/121/2012, has preferred the instant AEA (Appeal against Execution Application), praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.10.2023, pressing for holding the judgement of CC/121/2012 dated 18.07.2014 as non executable, claiming that such judgement of CC/121/2012 was obtained by the complainant of the said CC/121/2012 by practising fraud upon the concerned Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman.

The case record reveals that on 06.08.2012 complainant Dilip Kumar Sarkar filed CC/121/2012 against OP of that Complaint Case Partha Sarathi Roy alleging commission of deficiency in service and perpetration of unfair trade practice upon him, by causing deliberate deviation of the sanctioned plan of construction of the house of the complainant of CC/121/2012 Dilip Kumar Sarkar, by violating true directions of the complainant of CC/121/2012.

It appears from the case record that the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, by pronouncing contested judgement dated 18.07.2014, had allowed the said complaint case holding that the OP of CC/121/2012 Partha Sarathi Roy had caused deficiency in service and directed compensation and refund etc., as categorically reflected in the ordering portion of the said judgement of CC/121/2012 dated 18.07.2014.

The case record postulates specially the Appeal (A/656/2015) preferred against that judgement of CC/121/2012 dated 18.07.2014, by the OP of CC/121/2012, Partha Sarathi Roy was determined by the Ld. SCDRC, as time barred and consequently said Appeal was not entertained by the Hon’ble SCDRC vide order dated 13.05.2016, on that ground.

It transpires from the case record that the OP of CC/121/2012 and Appellant of A/656/2015, Partha Sarathi Roy preferred Revision Petition No. 2274 of 2016 before the Hon’ble NCDRC New Delhi, seeking setting aside the order of the Hon’ble SCDRC in A/656/2015 dated 13.05.2016 but the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi was pleased to determine the said Revision Petition dismissed for non prosecution for the absence of the Revisionist/Petitioner of the said Revision 2274/2016, Partha Sarathi Roy.

This is forthcoming from the available materials on record that during the continuation of the A/51/2014 filed at the instance of the complainant of CC/121/2012, Dilip Kumar Sarkar as the DHR of the said EA/51/2014, the JDR of the said EA, Partha Sarathi Roy filed application questioning the legal propriety sustainability and maintainability of the judgement of CC/121/2012 dated 18.07.2014 on the ground that the judgement of CC/121/2012 was obtained by the complainant/DHR of the CC/121/2012 and EA/51/2014, Dilip Kumar Sarkar by practising fraud since he had concealed the fact before the Ld. DCDRC, while pursuing CC/121/2012 that though he (complainant) of CC/121/2012 was delivered possession of his house constructed by the OP of CC/121/2012 Partha Sarathi Roy, on 30.11.2009 yet he had not filed CC/121/2012 by 29.11.2011, seeking direction of the Ld. Commission upon the OP of CC/121/2012 for delivery of possession of the complainant’s house in complainant’s favour, and it is the specific contention of the Appellant/JDR/OP Partha S