HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This interlocutary application has been filed by the Petitioner/Judgement Debtor praying for passing an order to allow the Judgement Debtor to deliver the flat being the first prayer of the complaint case without demanding the payment of money which is alternative prayer by the Decree Holder.
2.  The facts, to be taken notice of for the disposal of the present application, are that the complainants filed complainant case under Consumer Protection Act against the Petitioner/Judgement Debtor with the allegations of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The said complaint case was allowed by this Commission on 26.03.2019 and Judgement Debtor was directed to refund the consideration received from the complainant nos. 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs. 5,51,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand) only and Rs. 5,15,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifteen thousand) only to the complainant nos. 3 and 4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization. Since Petitioner/Judgement Debtor did not comply the said order the Decree Holder filed the Execution Case being No. EA/145/2019.
3. The Judgement Debtor/Petitioner appeared in the execution case and filed the instant application praying for passing an order to allow the Judgement Debtor to deliver the flat being first prayer without demanding the payment of money.
4. We have heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties. Also perused the record and the instant application.
5. It has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/Judgement Debtor that Judgement Debtor is unable to pay money in lieu of the delivery of the flat which is the alternative prayer of the Decree Holder. He further submitted that Judgement Debtor has already invested the collected money from the Decree Holder for the development and construction of the building and no residual amount is left with the Judgement Debtor. So, the application filed by the Judgement Debtor should be allowed.
6. On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Decree Holder has submitted that the application is not maintainable and it should be dismissed with cost.
7. Upon hearing the both sides and on perusal of the record and the petition, we find that the Decree Holder instituted one complaint case being No. CC/289/2017 against the Petitioner/Judgement Debtor and others and that complaint case was allowed after hearing.
8. On 26.03.2019 this Commission directed the Judgement Debtor/Petitioner to refund the consideration amount received from the complainant nos. 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs. 5,51,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand) only and Rs. 5,15,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifteen thousand) only to the complainant nos. 3 and 4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective payment till realization. Record goes to show that the said order has not yet been verified or modified or altered by any higher authority. It is well settled that the executing commission cannot go beyond the order in absence of challenge to the order in appropriate proceeding and the order passed by the commission is binding between the parties unless and until it is m