Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashThis application is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against the order No. 2 dated July 19, 2010
passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in R.P. Case No. 75 of 2010 thereby dismissing the
revisional application preferred by the petitioner with regard to the execution proceeding No. 74 of 2009.
2. The short fact is that the opposite party filed a complaint before the learned District Forum, Alipore being the C.C. Case No. 107 of 2008
stating, inter alia, that on the basis of a verbal agreement, the opposite party booked a flat measuring 650 square feet on the first floor at premises
No. 176/14/142, Raipur Road, Kolkata -700 092 being the flat No. 1A at a total consideration price of Rs. 5,00,000/- only. The said
consideration money was paid. But the judgment debtor/petitioner herein, did not deliver possession of the flat and also did not execute the deed
of conveyance. So, he filed the complaint before the forum. That matter went from the consumer forum to State Commission, then National
Commission and ultimately to the Apex Court and everywhere the decree/order passed against the judgment debtor, petitioner herein, has been
confirmed. The judgment debtor did not comply with the said decree/order and as such, execution application was filed for execution of the
decree/order. In that application, the judgment debtor filed an application for cancelling the application for execution of the decree. That
application was dismissed on contest by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, he filed a revisional application before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, West Bengal (henceforth shall be called as ''State Commission''). By the order impugned, the learned commission has
rejected the revisional application. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the judgment debtor.
3. Mr. Guha Thakurata, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a single petition for execution u/s 25/27 of the
Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Moreover, the decreeholder had obtained the decree by practising fraud upon the Court before the
District Consumer Forum and so the decree should not be executed.
4. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, objects to such submission and he submits that the judgment debtor
fought up to the Apex Court and everywhere he lost thereby confirming the decree/order passed by the consumer forum. So, there is no question
of exercising fraud upon the Court. An application u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act is well maintainable. So, the application should be
dismissed.
5. Therefore, the point that emerges for decision in this application is whether the impugned order can be sustained.
6. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the petitioner has raised the
contention that in a single petition containing two kinds of relief in the execution application is not maintainable. There is no doubt that the order
passed by a consumer forum amounts to a decree and such decree is enforceable by the forum or the State Commission u/s 25 of the Consumer
Protection Act. The same can be executed before the said forum and in case the decree/order becomes unexecutable by the forum, then it can be
executed by the civil Court, if the situation demands. Section 27 of the said Act confers additional power upon the forum or the State Commission
to execute with the order and the said provision is akin to Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the C.P.C. or the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Therefore, in order to get the relief as per decree, the decreeholder has mentioned two kinds of relief in the application for execution of the decree.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society and
Others, and submits that according to the paragraph Nos. 57 and 58 of the said decision, such prayer for alternative relief cannot be executed in
the same application. Upon perusal of the said decision, I find that there is no such indication in the ratio of the decision that such two modes of
execution of decree/order cannot be done in one application. Rather, everything is kept open for execution of the decree and it can be dealt with
by the forum or the State Commission and in case of need by the civil Court. In that case, the decree can well be sent to the civil Court for
execution. Therefore, the said decision does not help the petitioner at all.
8. As regards the contention of the petitioner relating to fraud, I find from the materials on record that the decree/order passed by the District
Forum was challenged before the State Commission and then before the Hon''ble National Commission and lastly the SLP filed by the petitioner
was dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court.
9. This being the position, at this stage of execution, the question of practising fraud is nothing but it means a way to delay the execution of the
case. Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. This application is totally meritless.
10. It is, therefore, dismissed.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.