M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO. 25 OF 2024 (Arising out of order dated 27.03.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 37/2019 by District Commission, Bhopal)

Shamsuddin Shaikh S/o Nizam Shaikh, House No. X-294, Rajharsh Colony, Nayapura, Kolar Road, Bhopal ------------ PETITIONER.

Versus

1- Faith Builders and Realties Private Limited, Through-Managing Director, Raghvendra Singh Tomar S/o PS Tomar, House No. 65, Vaishali Nagar, Kotrasultanabad, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal

2- Abhishekh Bhadoriya S/o KS Bhadoriya, Flat No. 401, Faith Richment Heights, In front of Swarnjayanti Park, Bawadiyakalan, Bhopal ------------- RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : PRESIDING MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Sunil Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.

None for respondent no. 1.

Shri Manish Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2

Order

Dated 12 /03/2025 As per Dr. Srikant Pandey This is a revision petition filed by complainant/petitioner against the order dated 27/03/2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’) in Execution Case No. 37/2019, whereby the District Commission has directed for proposing a new name for the commissioner for spot inspection of the flat and thereafter issuance of Commissioner warrant.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant/petitioner had filed a C.C.No 405/2017 alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/respondents for not providing the possession of the flat despite taking full price of the flat.

3. The District Commission vide order dated 24.01.2019 allowed the complaint no. 405/2017 and directed the opposite parties to give possession of the allotted flat no. 122 to the complainant/petitioner after completion of the construction of the flat within a period of two months and the complainant/petitioner to pay the due amount to the opposite parties. It is further directed that in case the opposite parties fail to give possession as directed, they shall pay bank interest on the amount of Rs. 12,71,735/- deposited by the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with costs of Rs. 3,000/- is also awarded.

4. For compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2019 in C.C.No.405/2017 the complainant/petitioner has filed an execution case no. 37/2019 wherein the District Commission has passed the order dated 27.03.2024 which is under challenge. By the impugned order the District Commission has directed for proposing new name for the commissioner for spot inspection of the flat and thereafter issuance of commissioner warrant to verify the fact whether the construction of the subject matter flat has been completed or not.

5. Heard on admission. Learned council for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24/01/2019 passed by the District Commission has attained finality, therefore the order dated 27/03/2024 passed by the District Commission in execution case is against the settled law. An execution curt cannot go behind the decree and will not alter or modify the order in execution proceedings. He further argued that the District Commission has committed error directing the parties to the case to propose a new name for the commissioner and the thereafter to issue commissioner warrant. Therefore, the order dated 27/03/2024 passed by the District Commission be set aside.

6. The Learned Counsel for Respondent-2 objected to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and argued that the order dated 27/03/2024 is a speaking order giving reasons for issuance of the directions so as to verity the fact whether the construction of the subject matter flat has been completed or not. He further argued that the revision petition can not be entertained against an order of the District Commission passed in execution proceedings. Hence the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having gone through the impugned order as also the record, we ob