SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against an order dated July 5, 2017, whereby the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, while taking up Miscellaneous Application No. MA/379/2017 filed by the petitioner in connection with EA/40/2016, has rejected such miscellaneous application on the ground that the points canvassed therein were previously decided.
(2.) One Bakul Rani Biswas apparently entered into an agreement for sale with the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties. The opposite parties, complaining of non performance of such agreement by the said Bakul Rani Biswas, took out a proceeding before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the decision whereof was challenged in appeal before the State Forum, where it was ultimately affirmed that such complaint was without pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, a proper application was taken out by the opposite parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In the meantime, Bakul Rani Biswas, the original respondent, having died, one Bhajan Biswas was substituted on the allegation that the said Bhajan was the heir of Bakul Rani Biswas. An award was obtained by the opposite parties against Bhajan and such award was put into execution by instituting Execution Application No. SC/10/EX/2006. Upon coming to know of such execution case, the present petitioner, namely, Suranjan Biswas, took the plea that such execution case was not maintainable in view of the fact that all along one fictitious person called Bhajan had been impleaded as respondent and only at the last stage of the execution proceeding, the name of Suranjan was introduced as an alias of such Bhajan.
(3.) The said contention of the petitioner was accepted by the State Commission vide Order No. 34 dated November 18, 2009 and, although no final adjudication was made as to the identity of Suranjan and Bhajan, the execution case was disposed of, making it clear that such rejection would not prevent the decree-holder to take proper steps against Suranjan.;