Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 8114
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH
Sunita Yadav, President, Monika Malik, Member
M/S PRAYAS HOME DEV. – Appellant
Versus
SMT.UMA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/17/2251 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Tiwari
For the Respondents: None
The court held that if a party is ready to comply with an alternative remedy provided in a decree (allotting an alternative plot) and was denied the opportunity to object to a report claiming unavailability, the matter must be remanded for a fair hearing in accordance with natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Execution of Decree - Alternative Performance - Where a decree provides for a hierarchy of compliance (specific plot, then alternative plot, then refund), the availability of an alternative plot must be verified, and the party must be given an opportunity to object to reports regarding such availability. (Para 6, 8)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity to be heard - Passing an execution order based on a Commissioner's report without allowing the judgment debtor to file objections is a procedural lapse that warrants the remand of the matter. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the order directing refund based on a Commissioner's report should be set aside and the matter remanded when the appellant claimed availability of alternative plots and lack of opportunity to object to the report.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the plot allotment dispute and the subsequent execution proceedings for refund. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding the availability of alternative plots and the denial of an opportunity to object to the commissioner's report. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. remand of the case to the district commission to ensure a fair hearing on the availability of alternative plots. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2017
(Arising out of order dated 23.05.2016 passed in Execution Case No. 1554/E/09/30 by District Commission, Indore)
M/S PRAYAS HOME DEVELOPERS, THROUGH PARTNER RAMGOPAL LASHKARI,
40, IMLI BAZAR, INDORE (M.P.) … APPELLANT.
Versus
SMT. UMA BHONSLE, W/O SHRI SUDHAKAR BHONSLE,
R/O BLOCK NO.8, HOUSE NO.P.G.-109, M.O.G. LINES, INDORE (M.P.) … RESPONDENT.
BEFORE :
HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
O R D E R
(Passed On 31.07.2026)
Per Say Justice SunitaYadav, President
The opposite party/appellant-M/S Prayas Home Developers has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in Execution Case No.1554/E/09/30.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. The complainant had filed a complaint C.C.No.1554/2009 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party President, Prayas Home Developers, Indore for not allotting and getting the plot registered in her name despite taking sale consideration of the plot before the District Commission, Indore. The District Commission, Indore vide order dated 11.11.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to execute registered sale deed of the questioned plot no.307 admeasuring 600 sq.ft within a period of four months. It is further directed that if it is not possible to get the registered sale deed executed of the questioned plot, the opposite party shall execute registered sale deed of any other developed plot of same area in the same colony or in any other developed colony. Further it is directed that if it is not possible to get the registered sale deed executed of any other plot, the opposite party shall refund the cost of the plot as per collector guidelines. Compensation of Rs.3,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.
4. The complainant has filed an Execution Application No.1554/E/09/30 for compliance of order dated 11.11.2011 passed in C.C.No.1554/2009 wherein she made a prayer that since the developed land is not available with the opposite party, therefore, the opposite party be directed to pay the amount @ Rs.572/- per sq.ft as per collector guidelines for the plot area of 600 sq.ft which comes to Rs.3,35,000/-. The opposite party opposed the prayer stating that the opposite party is ready and willing to comply with second part of the order i.e. to give developed plot of same area in the same colony or in any other developed colony, therefore, the question of third part of the order to pay the cost of the plot as per collector guidelines does not arise.
5. The District Commission on the basis of report of Commissioner found that no plot in developed colony is available with the opposite party and therefore directed the opposite party to pay the cost of the plot of area 600 sq.ft as per collector guidelines to the complainant vide impugned order dated 23.05.2016 passed in Execution Case No.1554/E/09/30.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the executing court while passing the order in execution case on the basis of the Commissioner's report directed the opposite party to pay cost of the plot as per collector guidelines whereas the appellant/opposite party was not given an opportunity for objection to the Commissioner's report and without inviting objection, the impu
