Execution applications cannot reopen resolved matters; they must focus on enforcing final decrees without modifying or reinterpreting prior judicial decisions.

…. Respondent/ Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER ARGUED BY : Maharaj Krishna Datta, Appellant No.1 in person.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Respondent.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The present Appeal Execution has been filed by the Appellants

1.

challenging the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, by virtue of which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “ the Ld. District Commission ”) dismissed the execution application bearing No. EA/29/2024 filed by the Decree Holders/ Complainants titled as “ Maharaj Krishan Datta & Ors. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. ”. For the sake of precision, here it would be prudent to reproduce the operative portion of the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Ld. District Commission:- “………… For reasons mentioned above the application filed under section 72 being not maintainable is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the complainants in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. Accordingly the JD/OP is discharged.”

Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as they appear from the record are

2.

that earlier the Decree Holders/ Complainants filed an execution application bearing No. 103/2023 with the Ld. District Commission and it has omitted to take any cognizance of the facts brought in notice in Para 2(A), B & C of the said execution application. As per calculation the amount payable by the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party was 33,819/- whereas the Judgment Debtor has miscalculated the said amount and released an amount of 29,692/- and in this manner, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party had not paid an amount of 4,127/-. The Ld. District Commission vide order dated 18.01.2016 passed in EA/130/2014 in Consumer Complaint No.1469 of 2008 (decided on 10.07.2009), passed decree of Rs.10,54,755/- in favour of the Decree Holders against the Judgment Debtor bank on account of overcharging of interest on home loan interest and instead of honouring the decree, the Judgment Debtor/ Opposite Party had only paid Rs.3,85,993/- against the decretal amount of Rs.10,54,755/-. The Ld. District Commission, however, declined to award the interest amount and thereafter, the Decree Holders/ Complainants filed Revision Petition No. 5 of 2016 before this Commission on the ground of error in calculation of dereetal amount. This Commission partially accepted the said Revision Petition by disallowing the payment of 4,81,505/- vide order dated 04.04.2016. Against the said order, the Complainants/Decree Holders approached the Hon’ble National Commission where Judgment Debtor/ Opposite Party filed an affidavit disclosing the quantum of interest calculated, but the Hon’ble National Commission also mis-interpreted the affidavit given on oath and relying upon the said affidavit, the Hon’ble National Commission passed order dated 29.5.2017 which led to miscarriage of justice.

Thereafter, the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party paid an amount of 2,64,363/- and thereby, paid total amount of 6,50,356/- out of the total decretal amount of

10,54,755/-. It was alleged that as the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party had not calculated the payable amount as per decree and the executing courts have also not taken into consideration the facts while passing orders and also that the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party was also misinterpreted by the Hon’ble National Commission and as such the decree holder is entitled for an amount of 4,127/- and

5,24,974/- along with interest and c