JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioners, who were the Opposite Parties No. 8 to 10 in the original Complaint (hereinafter be referred as “the owners”).  Vide the present Revision Petition, the owners have challenged the order dated 12.07.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.320 of 2011 filed by them against the order dated 09.06.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.120 of 2007 of the Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred as “the Complainant”).  The State Commission has dismissed the Appeal.  The District Forum had allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions:

“that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest.  The Ops are directed to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the flat in the kha schedule within one month from the date of order.  The Ops are also directed to pay jointly or severally a sum of ₹10,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation and ₹2000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of order.  In default the total sum of ₹12000/- will carry an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till the date of making final payment.”

2.      In the Revision Petition, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the owners that they were the owner of a property and they had entered into an agreement dated 04.12.2001 with the Respondents no.2 to 8 herein, (hereinafter referred as “the Developers”).  The Developers executed power of attorney subsequently on 05.12.2001.  It is argued that the Owners had filed a Civil Suit for Injunction against the Developers in 2007 and an order dated 22.03.2007 was passed whereby the parties to the suit at that time were made to observe status-quo qua the subject property which was the subject matter of the agreement dated 04.12.2001.  It is submitted that the said Suit for Injunction was subsequently amended and the Complainant was also made a party therein.  The Suit was finally disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2013 whereby the Suit was decreed and all the Opposite Parties which also included the Complainant were restrained from alienating from the subject property.  It is submitted that this Commission does not possess the jurisdiction to defy the said directions of the decree and/or inte