Harish Chandra Gupta vs VIRENDRA KUMAR PRAJAPATI

-MR. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, has been heard in support of revision filed by Harish Chandra Gupta who was impleaded as opposite party in a complaint filed by Virendra Kumar Prajapati impleaded as respondent in this revision. By an order dated 8.6.2000 passed by District Forum, Bahraich the complaint was allowed and it was directed that a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- was receivable from opposite party No. 1 in complaint i.e., Harish Chandra Gupta. Certain other directions were also issued about distribution of the amount between some persons who were also entitled. Interest was also allowed.

THE aforesaid order dated 8.6.2000 was challenged in Appeal No. 1641 of 2000 in this Commission. THE impugned order is dated 28.3.2001 which obviously was passed when Appeal No. 1641/2000 was pending here. However, it may be pointed out that the said Appeal No. 1641/2000 was dismissed by the Commission against which Harish Chandra Gupta filed a revision before Hon''ble N.C.D.R.C. which has dismissed the same. Mr. R.K. Gupta has stated he does not know whether any further appeal to the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been made or not. Sri Prajapati states that there is no stay order by any Court and, therefore, he had put the decree dated 8.6.2000 into execution and prayed for action under Section 27. He further pointed out that in compliance of the decree no amount has been paid to the complainant so far except that as per the order of Hon''ble N.C.D.R.C. the amount of Re. 1.00 deposited by the opposite party in the complaint of Sri Harish Chandra Gupta, was released in favour of the complainant which has been credited to the Bank account which had allegdly advanced some loan to the complainant.

By the impugned order dated 28.3.2001 it has been noted by the District Forum that there was non-compliance and, therefore, an order under Section 27 of the COPRA was necessary. It has also been noted in the said order that Counsel for Harish Chandra Gupta appeared before District Forum but the fact that there was non-compliance of the order even though there was no interim stay order from any Court, was not denied. Consequently it proceeded to exercise the power under Section 27 of the Act and directed Rs. 10,000/- fine to be paid by Harish Chandra Gupta and also sentenced him one year simple imprisonment. It was further clarified that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was over and above the compensation which was awarded through original order dated 8.6.2000.

MR. R.K. Gupta contended that the revisionist has not been heard. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated 28.3.2001 should be quashed. Sri Avdesh Kumar Prajapati appearing for his father Sri Virendra Kumar Prajapati-complainant has said that the aforesaid argument is contrary to the facts because due notice of the proceedings was given inasmuch as Counsel for opposite party did appear in execution proceedings. This reply to the argument is correct as already noted above. There is no force in the revision and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.