State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parvez Ali vs Smt. Saswati Das on 27 June, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/465/2013 (Arising out of order dated 13/03/13 in Case No.EA/19/2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas) DATE OF FILING:29/04/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:
27/06/14 APPELLANT : Parvez Ali S/o-Nawab Ali 2/H/20, Radha Gobindo Saha Lane Kolkata-700 017 P.S. Kareya RESPONDENTS : 1) Smt. Saswati Das Constituted Attorney of Sri Ananta Kumar Biswas S/o-Late Rashiklal Biswas P 14, Green View Garia, Kolkata-700 084 P.S. Jadavpur
2) Sri Prodyut Roy S/o-Late Prabhat Chandra Roy D-13, Baghajatin Station Road Kolkata-700 032 P.S. Jadavpur
3) Smt. Indrani Chatterjee 27, Kanungo Park Block-A, P.O. Garia Kolkata-700 084 P.S. Jadavpur BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Mr. Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Ashok Biswas Ld. Advocate Mr. Supratik Basu Ld. Advocate Ms. Gargi Saha Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Prosanta Banerjee Ld. Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This Appeal u/s 27A of the C. P. Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 13/03/13 passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.EA 19 of 2011. The Learned District Forum by the order impugned appointed an Advocate Commissioner for delivery of possession in favour of Dhr with the police help. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Learned District Forum the present Appellant being the third party to the complaint case has preferred the instant appeal.
It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the impugned judgment in the complaint case was passed by the Learned District Forum on 18/02/10, but no Appeal u/s 15 was preferred by the Appellant. The present Appellant being third party to the complaint case claimed to be the purchaser of the flat in question. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the present Appellant purchased the flat from Anurag Atri who purchased the same from promoter Prodyut Roy (Respondent No.2). It is contended that Prodyut Roy signed as Constituted Attorney of Indrani Chaterjee, the owner. It is submitted that Indrani Chatterjee appeared before the Learned District Forum and filed a petition praying for expunging her name. It is submitted that the present Appellant came to know about the execution case filed u/s 27 of the C. P. Act, 1986 and then appeared in this Appeal. It is submitted that the Appellant being a bonafide purchaser for value without notice was driven out or dispossessed of the subject flat by the Dhr with the help of police. It is contended that Smt. Indrani Chatterjee appeared in the complaint case, but filed a petition for expunging her name and such prayer was allowed.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has submitted that there was an agreement between the promoter and owner.
It is submitted that possession of the subject flat was not delivered and, as such, the complaint case was filed.
It is submitted that the name of Indrani Chatterjee was expunged on 11/12/09. It is submitted that no Appeal u/s 15 of the C. P. Act, 1986 was filed by the present Appellant.
Admittedly, the present Appellant is a third party to the proceeding and he claims himself to be the purchaser from the promoter and the land owner. In the BNA filed by the Appellant it has been stated that the promoter Prodyut Roy once appeared before the Learned District Forum on 27/08/09 through his Learned Advocate, but subsequently did not contest. It has also been stated in the BNA that Indrani Chatterjee being the land owner filed an application on 01/12/09 for expunging her name as the OP.
The fact remains that the complaint case was allowed and the present Appellant did not prefer any Appeal u/s 15 of the C. P. Act, 1986. Such being the position, whatever might be the contention of the present Appellant the fact remains that no Appeal u/s 15 was preferred and the matter attained finality. At this stage the questions raised by the present Appellant cannot be entertained. Therefore, the Appeal fails.
The Appeal be and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Sd/-
MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT