STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/373/2019 ANIL RAMKRUSHNA KHARE PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PLOT NO. 32,SHRIRAM NAGAR , UDAY NAGAR CHOWK, NAGPUR.440024,MAHARASHTRA. DINESH RAMKISAN SUPARIWALE PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O.KAMAL NIWAS, LALGANJ,KHADIPURA,MEHANDIBAGH ROAD, LALGANJ POLICE STATION, NAGPUR 440027,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NEERAJ SADASHIVRAO DHAKITE PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O.C.O.SMT. VIJAYA KHADGI, PLOT NO. 102, SADGURU NAGAR, CHINTAMANI NAGAR 1,MANEWADA BESA ROAD NAGPUR.,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/374/2019 ANIL RAMKRUSHNA KHARE PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PLOT NO. 32,SHRIRAM NAGAR , UDAY NAGAR CHOWK, NAGPUR.440024,MAHARASHTRA. DINESH RAMKISAN SUPARIWALE PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O.KAMAL NIWAS, LALGANJ,KHADIPURA,MEHANDIBAGH ROAD, LALGANJ POLICE STATION, NAGPUR 440027,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus VIJAYA NITIN KHADGI PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PLOT NO. 102, SADGURU NAGAR, CHINTAMANI NAGAR

1,MANEWADA BESA ROAD NAGPUR.,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

ADV. S.K. PAUNIKAR FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE DATED: 16/02/2026

ORDER

COMMON ORDER

(Delivered on 16/02/2026)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. These appeal are preferred by the appellant/execution non- applicants/accused persons, Anil Ramkrushna Khare and Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale, being aggrieved by the order passed on 06/11/2019 in Execution Application No.EA/17/125 and Execution Application No.EA/17/126 (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”).

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

2. The Execution Applicants (Complainants) contended that the non- applicants had willfully failed to comply with the learned District Forum’s order dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320. Said orders required the non-applicants either to execute the registered sale deed of Plots bearing Nos.56 , 57 and 38 after receiving the balance amount, or alternatively, to refund Rs.75,460/- by appellant No.1 and Rs.32,920/- by appellant No.2 with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and costs of Rs.5,000/- each within 30 days. Despite knowledge of the said order, the non- applicants neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the money within the stipulated period. The applicant submitted that such deliberate and intentional disobedience amounted to contempt of the order attracting punishment. So, the Execution Applicants (Complainants) filed the executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 against the execution non-applicants (opposite parties/accused) before the learned District Forum for appropriate sentence under Section 27 of the Act of 1986.

3. On the contrary, the Execution Non-applicants (Opposite Parties/Accused) contested the proceedings by denying any willful or deliberate disobedience of the order. They contended that execution of the sale deed could not be carried out due to non-availability of the requisite non-agricultural permission from the competent authority. They submitted that the non- compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate, but arose from legal and procedural constraints beyond their control. They also stated that they were always ready and willing to refund the amount as directed by the Commission. On these grounds, they asserted that no contempt or breach of the order was made out against them. Thus, they prayed for to held them not guilty for non- compliance of orders dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320.

4. After the non-applican