Both parties to this revision petition had filed two cross appeals before the A P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal of the complainant/Dasari Janardhan was allowed and the appeal filed by the OP/Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd was dismissed. Both appeals had arisen from an Execution Application filed by the complainant under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection -1- Act before the District Forum, Hyderabad.The District Forum had passed the f o l l o w i n g o r d e r

In view of the above, both the parties have to comply the orders of the District Forum dt. 12.09.2007, as it attained finality already.Further, the Forum provided adequate opportunity to both the parties.And the parties have now to be clear that to meet the ends of justice, they should adhere to this District Forum order dt. 12.09.2007 scrupulously. In the result, the order of this Forum dt. 12.09.2007 has become final.The complainant complied partly, so directed to comply fully by paying the balance of development charges with interest. Further, the opposite party is directed to comply fully (restoration of plot as directed above) within one month, failing which, punishable with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only.

2. While considering the two appeals, the State Commission noted that the OP/present revision petitioner had apparently not preferred any appeal against the original order of the District Forum of 12.09.2007 in which the complaint had been allowed directing the OP to collect the developmental charges and restore the allotment of the plot.

3. The appeals filed by the two parties were disposed of by the State Commission w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r s : -

18. In the result, the appeal, F.A No.700 of 2012 is allowedmodifying the order of the District Forum. The opposite party is sentenced to three months imprisonment or till it restores the allotment of plot bearing number 21 Sector V, Block Za, East City, Bibinagar in favour of the complainant whichever is earlier. Consequently, the appeal, F.A. No.128 of 2012 is dismissed.The costs of the proceedings quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.

4. In view of the fact that the order of 24.7.2012 passed by the District Forum and the order of 6.3.2013 passed by the State Commission have both been passed in ExecutionProceedings, the present revision, in effect, should have been filed as an appeal under Section 27 A (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner M/s. Narne Estates Private Ltd. has chosen to file the petition under Section 21 (b) of the Act which is not applicable to the present case.

5. I have carefully considered the records and heard Mr. B.P Padhy, Advocate at length on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel agreed during the course of the argument that the present petitioner had not challenged the original order of the District Forum passed on 12.09.2007. He therefore agreed that the same had acquired finality vis-a-vis the revision petition.

6. The petitioner has assailed the observation of the State Commission in para 16 of the impugned order.The contention of Shri Padhy is that it was wrong for the State Commission to observe that the OP had not adduced any evidence to show that the same plot had already been sold to a third party on 4.8.2007 i.e. prior to 12.9.2007, when the District Forum passed the relevant order.

7. In my view, for full appreciation, it is necessary to read para 16 mentioned by the petitioners counsel in conjunction with para 15 of the impugned order. These p a r a s r e a d a s f o l l o w s : -

15.The opposite party contends that it could not restore allotment of plot since it has sold the plot to third party five years ago. The complainant submits that the opposite party cannot sell the plot during pendency of the complaint before the District Forum and in such case he seeks for refund of the amount paid by him and imposition of penalty to the opposite party to the tune of 10,00,000/- for gross violation of the order of the District Forum and for wasting the time of the District Forum and this Commission by suppressing the fact of sale of the plot to third party. 16.The opposite party has not adduced evidence to show that the plot was sold to third party.The opposite party has not stated the name of the person to whom the plot was sold and on which date as also through which registered sale deed the sale transaction was made in respect of the plot bearing number 21 at Sector V, Bloc Za, East City, Bibinagar.The scope of execution is limited and the District Forum or this Commission cannot go behind the order.

8. Learned counsel also argued that the matter had been brought to the notice of the District Forum itself, when Execution Application No.88 of 2009 was under consideration. He sought to rely on the fact that in the order of 24.7.2012, the District Forum has mentioned that the OP had agreed to show an alternative plot to the Complainant on 23.3.2012. In my view, this does not amount to saying that the inability of the OP to hand over the original plot to the Complainant on account of the same having already been sold to another person, had been established before the District Forum. Secondly, if the sale of the same plot to another person on

4.8.2007 was actually the case of the OP before the District Forum and the OP felt that its evidence on this point had not been properly appreciated by the District Forum, the OP definitely would have appealed against the order of 12.9.2007. Admittedly, no such appeal was filed. Thirdly, learned counsel Shri B.P.Pardhy was specifically asked to point out what documentary evidence was placed before and rejected/ignored by the District Forum which would have established conclusion of sale in favour of a third party prior to the order of the District Forum. He expressed his inability to point to any such evidence.

9. In view of the details considered above, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Execution Appeal Nos. FA 700 of 2012 and FA 128 of 2013.The petition of M/s. Narne Estates Private Limited, listed as RP No.1291 of 2013, is consequently dismissed for want of merit. ...................... VINAY KUMAR PRESIDING MEMBER