M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, leveling certain deficiencies, against the opposite parties/ appellants, has filed CC.No.20/2001, on the file of District Forum, Nagapattinam. After contest, an order came to be passed on 29.12.2004, issuing certain directions, thereby causing grievance to the opposite party to come to this commission, as appellant, in A.P.No.740/2005. This commission, considering the rival contentions of the parties, passed an order on 23.4.2007, wherein a direction has been issued, which reads the opposite parties to work out the amount due for land as on 18.3.1997, without any demand for interest subsequent thereto. The opposite parties shall quantify the amount for the land as on 18.3.97, make a time as may be fixed by them and on payment by the complainant after satisfying himself as to the quantum. The Housing Board shall execute the sale deed in favour o the complainant, within two months after payment by the complainant. Against this order dt.23.4.2007, nobody has gone on appeal, as reported, thereby the order reached finality, enforceable, not under challenge.
(2.) As directed by this commission, the opposite parties, quantifying cost, fixing time, issued demand, even as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, and pursuant to the demand, it is also an admitted fact, that the complainant had paid the amount. Therefore, as ordered by this commission, the housing board should have executed sale deed, in favour of the complainant within two months, after payment by the complainant, which they failed, resulting Execution Petition No.4/2009, before the District Forum. Despite the fact, the order of this commission, reached finality, on some grounds, EP was opposed and the District Forum, overruling the objection, passed a peculiar order, which is not acceptable to us, which reads Petition allowed, the opposite party is directed to execute the sale deed within 15 days. Since already a direction is there, it is redundant, for the District Forum, to issue such a direction, and the District Forum, ought to have enforced the order of this commission, since the opposite party, failed to execute the sale deed, treating it as an offense, taking appropriate action, as contemplated under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, which they failed. Even after a chance was given by the District Forum, admittedly even as on this date, sale deed has not been executed, thereby, there is a clear disobedience of the court order.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would urge, that originally they have paid some amount to the complainant, as if they have paid excess amount, which should be taken into account, which cannot be decided in the execution proceedings. If at all, they had any right, to get back that amount, the opposite party/appellant, ought to have agitated either before the District Forum, or at least before the Sate Commission, which they failed, thereby suffered a direction, to execute the sale deed, on payment of some amount, which was paid by the complainant also. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. In view of the above stated position, there is a clear disobedience, and we find no merit in this appeal, which deserves to be dismissed, with cost.;