Seth, J. - (1.) The controversy : Reliefs were sought by the respondent/ writ petitioner for execution of the conveyance pursuant to an agreement for purchase of a flat under the scheme formulated by the developer under agreement with the owner before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum had occasion to impound the agreement between the owner-promoter and the consumer on the ground that it was not properly stamped However, Mr. Talukdar on behalf of the respondent points out that proper stamp-duty was paid by the consumer on the agreement between him and the owner/ promoter. But Mr. Bhattacharya on behalf of the appellant contends that this agreement was not registered though it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 sub-section (1-A) of the Registration Act incorporated through amendment by Act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24th September, 2001, since the agreement was entered into thereafter in October 2001. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, no relief can be had on the basis of such a document on two fold reasons-one that the document is impounded and the other that the document is not a registered one, even if it is stamped subsequent to the impounding of the agreement. However, Mr. Talukdar points out that he has no instruction as to whether the document was registered or not. The scope :
(2.) Whether the document is registered or not, whether any such relief can be had on merit before the Consumer Forum within the scope and ambit thereof, are points to be agitated before the Consumer Forum or the appropriate Forum, as the case may be. We keep all these points, except the point relating to jurisdiction/maintainability, open.
(3.) We would like to confine ourselves only to the question raised before this Court in the writ petition following prayers formulated in the writ petition by the appellant herein, which we would prefer to quote as hereafter:- "a. Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to receive, try or determine the issue involved in D.F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and the said D.F. Case No. 461 of 2003 is liable to be quashed. b. Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to refrain from entertaining the application being D.F.Case No. 461 of 2003 and to further refrain from giving any effect or further effect to the order passed in said D.F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and to hold that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application being D.F. Case No. 461 of 2003. c. Writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court all records relating to the present case including the record of D.F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and upon perusal of records conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner by quashing D.F.Case No. 461 of 2003 pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas ; d. Issue declaration that District Consumer Disputes Redressal" Forum has no jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the case being D.F. Case No. 461 of 2003 pending before the Forum. e. Rule in terms of prayer 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' above." Submission on behalf of the appellant:;