STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR APPEAL EXECUTION NO. SC/CB2/27/AEA/3/2020 M/s, Universal Real Infra Pvt,ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/o,402,Vitthal Rukhmini Palace,Laxminagar, NAGPUR.,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus AJAYSINGH PRAKASHSINGH THAKUR PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O,SHIV SADAN,TEMPLE BAZAR ROAD,SITABULDI, NAGPUR.NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Adv, Ritesh BAdhe (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

AD. UDAY PRABHAKAR KSHIRSAGAR (Advocate)

DATED: 28/10/2025

ORDER

(Delivered on 28.10.2025.)

Per Ms. Shaila D. Wandhare, Hon’ble Member.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original opposite party, M/s. Universal Real Infra Pvt. Ltd., through its proprietor Praveen Bhaiyaji Totalwar, being aggrieved by the order passed on 20/02/2020 in Execution Application No.EA/93/2018 (for short as “impugned order”) by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short as “learned District Forum”), vide Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short as “Act of 1986”).

2. The parties of the present appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as execution applicant (complainant) and execution non-applicant (opposite party/accused) respectively for better appreciation.

3. The Execution Applicant (Complainant) contended that the non-applicant had willfully failed to comply with the learned District Forum’s order dated 10/05/2018 in Complaint No. CC/17/163. Said order required the non-applicant either to execute the registered sale deed of Plots No.195 and 196 in Aura-III Layout after receiving the balance amount, or alternatively, to refund Rs.5,36,000/- with 18% interest along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-, within 30 days. Despite knowledge of the order, the non-applicant neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the money within the stipulated period. Even after service of notice and repeated opportunities, the order remained unfulfilled for more than 16 months. The applicant therefore submitted that such deliberate and intentional disobedience amounted to contempt of the judicial order, attracting punishment under Section 27 of the Act of 1986.

4.On the contrary, the Execution Non-applicant (Opposite Party/Accused)

defended himself by denying deliberate disobedience. He submitted that execution of the sale deed was delayed only because the necessary non- agricultural permission and approvals from NMRDC were pending, and that he was willing to execute the sale deed within four months once approvals were obtained. He also stated that the stamp duty and registration charges were to be borne by the complainant. The non-applicant further contended that since he was ready to perform the sale deed, there was no need to comply with the alternative refund order. At the stage of sentence, he pleaded that no imprisonment be imposed and that, at most, only a fine be levied.

5.After the non-applicant appeared before the learned District Forum, on

08/03/2019, explained the substance of the offence under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 to the non-applicant, who pleaded not guilty. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit on 05/04/2019 and further adduced evidence by way of examination-in-chief on 07/06/2019. Subsequently, on 18/09/2019, the non- applicant filed a written statement denying deliberate disobedience and contending that the delay was due to pending NMRDC permissions. The learned District Forum concluded that the non-applicant had deliberately disobeyed the order, thereby committing an offence under Section 27 and thereby, convicted the non-applicant and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).

6. Being aggrieved by impugned order, the present appeal is preferred on the ground that the impugned order suffers from non-application of judicial mind and