AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
This Case should be registered as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 13.02.2023.
This Appeal Execution has been filed against the Order dated 13.07.2018, whereby Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2017 of the present Appellant was dismissed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short the State Commission). This Application was moved by the Appellant in First Appeal No. 764 of 2017 filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 against the Order dated 08.09.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly (for short the District Forum) on Execution Application No. 31 of 2016, filed by the Decree Holder for execution of the Order dated 08.04.2016. The District Forum vide Order dated 08.09.2016 had issued non-bailable warrants against Judgment Debtor No.1. The said Judgment Debtor thereafter filed the Appeal, in which the present Appellant had moved Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2017, and the State Commission while dismissing the Appeal of Judgment Debtor No.1 also dismissed the said Miscellaneous Application. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that he was not given hearing on this Miscellaneous Application and it was disposed of without giving any hearing and seeks remand of the matter to the State Commission.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
The Appellant was heard in the Appeal filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 and the said Appeal was dismissed. The Appellant moved the Miscellaneous Application before the State Commission in the Appeal of Judgment Debtor No.1, seeking relief that Judgment Debtor No.1 and its Agents should be restrained from alienating any property to the Decree Holder. Apparently, the Appellant was a stranger to the entire proceedings between Judgment Debtor No.1 and the Decree Holder and the State Commission was hearing the matter on an Appeal of Judgment Debtor No.1. The Miscellaneous Application itself was not maintainable before the State Commission. The State Commission was not deciding or adjudicating the property rights of Judgment Debtor No.1 and the Appellant.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the Impugned Order. This Appeal has no merits. The same is dismissed in limine.