State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tara Singh Jhand vs Punjab Urban Development Authority on 3 August, 2010
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.946 of 2010
In/and
First Appeal No.936 of 2010
Date of institution : 26.5.2010
Date of decision : 03.8.2010
Tara Singh Jhand, Advocate son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, District Courts
Kapurthala, permanent resident of VPO Dudwindi, via Sheikhpur, District
Kapurthala.
.......Appellant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, SCO 41,
Ladowali Road, Opposite Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar City.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 1.4.2010 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kapurthala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for Shri G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate.
For the respondents : Shri G.S. Arshi, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Misc. Application for condonation of delay:
This appeal was filed with the delay of 26 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed in which reasons have been given for not filing the appeal within time. An affidavit is also filed. Accepted subject to just all exceptions and the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Case:
2. The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents. The respondents contested the case. It was accepted by the learned District Forum vide order dated 30.10.2009. The appellant filed an appeal against that order. The respondents also filed an appeal.2
3. The appellant filed the execution application in the learned District Forum.
It was contested by the respondents. It was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 1.4.2010 on the plea that even the decree-holder has filed the appeal against the order dated 30.10.2009. Therefore the aforesaid order 30.10.2009 cannot be executed.
4. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be accepted; the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 be set aside and the executing court be directed to execute the order dated 30.10.2009. It was further submitted that no stay order has been passed by this Commission in the appeal filed by the respondents. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported as "Allahabad Development Authority & Anr. v. District Consumer Protection Forum & Anr." AIR 2006 ALLAHABAD 71.
6. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that since both the parties have filed appeals against the order dated 30.10.2009, therefore, the aforesaid order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned District Forum was not executable.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. The settled law is that mere filing of appeal does not stop the execution of the order against which the appeal has been filed. It has been held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"5. It is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal would not operate as stay of an order appealed against."
9. Reliance was placed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid case on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.", (2005) I SCC 705.
10. Since no stay order has been obtained by the respondents in the appeal filed by them, therefore, the aforesaid order would be executable against the respondents.
3
11. In view of the facts of this case and the law discussed above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 is set aside. The executing court is directed to proceed with the execution proceedings till the operation of the order dated 30.10.2009 is not stayed specifically.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
August 3, 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER