LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs GYAN CHAND JAIN

THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 28.6.1993 passed by District Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 638/1992 and for stay of Execution Case No. 95/93.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 27.11.1982 with the opposite party through Bank for registration of a plot. By letter dated 31.1.1985 the complainant was allotted plot No. 3/144 at Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. A sum of Rs. 46,501/- was demanded by the opposite party which was also deposited by the complainant but the possession of the plot was not given even after lapse of seven years. THE complaint proceeded ex parte against opposite party as notice dated 30.3.1993 was served on the opposite party but none appeared from the side of the opposite party. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion, after considering the evidence on record, that there was deficiency in service, hence the complainant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and opposite party was directed to hand over possession of the plot. It was further ordered that till delivery of possession interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be payable by the appellant on the amount deposited.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued that no notice was served on the appellant. Hence the matter could not be decided before the District Forum. LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has further argued that the possession has already been delivered on 19.12.1996 after registration of the deed was done on 18.12.1995. According to the learned Counsel the interest at the rate of 18% per annum has been awarded is on the higher side. LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued that the plot allotted to the complainant in Indira Nagar did not exist and hence in compliance of the order of the District Forum another plot was allotted to the complainant in Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar costing Rs. 3,16,000/-, the price which was much higher than the amount deposited by the complainant. If the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is allowed to stand, then the complainant will be benefitted by another Rs. 1,00,000/- or so in the form of interest on the deposits made by complainant with the opposite party. According to learned Counsel no interest should be permitted to be charged by the complainant and the Executing Court should struck down this interest. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, complainant, has argued that no appeal has been filed against the original judgment. Hence the question of interest cannot be looked into in these proceedings. After hearing learned Counsel and perusing the file, we find that inspite of the service of notice, the applicant did not contest the case of the complainant before the District Forum. As a matter of fact the copy of the judgment was delivered to the revisionist on 15.7.1993, the photocopy of which was attested by the Assistant Engineer III of Public Works Department. These facts are apparent from the endorsement made on the photocopy of the judgment filed alongwith grounds of revision. Thus we find that an appeal should have been filed against this order and no revision lies against this order. This revision has been filed on 4.6.1997 about four years after the delivery of the judgment. Therefore, the revisionist cannot challenge the findings of the learned District Forum contained in the original judgment. It has been tried to show during the course of the arguments by the learned Counsel for the applicant/revisionist that injustice has been done to the revisionist by the Executing Forum as the interest is also being sought to be recovered from the applicant. We find that once a judgment has become final, the Executing Forum has to implement the judgment as it is and no amendment is possible in the judgment by the Executing Court. It is not for the Executing Court to see whether any injustice has been done to any of the parties in the litigation and it has to go by the relief granted in the judgment. If the revisionist was aggrieved against the order of the District Forum then he should have come before the State Commission in appeal for setting aside that part of the finding which went against the revisionist. As this has not been done, we find ourselves unable to touch the original judgment if any injustice has been done to the revisionist.

LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has tried to take us through the evidence which has been filed by the revisionist alongwith grounds of revision. We find ourselves unable to go through that evidence because the State Commission could only go through that evidence which has been filed before the District Forum. It cannot go through the evidence unless the permission of the State Commission has been sought after justifying the cause for not filing the same and contesting the case before the District Forum. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from looking into the evidence filed by the revisionist alongwith grounds of revision. Thus this revision is liable to be dismissed and the compliance of the order of the learned District Forum has to be done by the revisionist. The Commission has been told that the possession of the property has been delivered by the revisionist after registration of the deed. The revision is liable to be dismissed. Order The revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,500/- which the revisionist will pay to the opposite party within two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Revision dismissed with costs.