Tina Developer vs Tapas Ray & 3 Ors.

The Present Appeal Execution has been filed against the Order dated 18.02.2020, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"), whereby the IA/1120/2019 filed by the Appellant, who is one of the Judgment Debtor has been rejected on the ground that even though warrant of arrest had been issued against the present Appellant, instead of appearing in person, he has filed an Application for dismissal of Execution Case.

We have heard Mr. M.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the impugned Order passed by the State Commission.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Decree has already been given effect to by the execution of Conveyance Deed and therefore nothing remains for the Execution, which ought to have been dismissed.

We are not going into the merits of the case for the simple reason that it is not in dispute that the State Commission had issued Warrant of Arrest sometimes between 01.03.2019 and 13.11.2019 against all the Judgment Debtors and vide Order dated 13.11.2019, Warrant of Arrest against the Judgment Debtors No. 1 to 3, namely, Sri Subhasish Mukherjee, Sri Nivasish Mukherjee and Sri Debasish Mukherjee was recalled. However, for reasons best known, the present Appellant namely, Sri Sanjay Palangdar, who is the proprietor of M/s. Tina Developer, Judgment Debtor No. 4 had not appeared. If the Warrant of Arrest has been issued by the State Commission, it is obligatory for the said person against whom the Warrant of Arrest has been issued to appear before the State Commission and cannot avoid his appearance by making any Application for dismissal of the case.

The conduct of the present Appellant is such, which does not justify any favourable view. However, on the statement given by Mr. M.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant that Mr. Sanjay Palangdar will appear before the State Commission on 29.04.2020, which is the date fixed before the State Commission in the Execution Case, we direct that the issue and execution of Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest shall remain stayed till 29.04.2020, on which date as per the statement given by Mr. M.P. Gupta the learned Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Palangdar will appear. If for any reason, he does not appear before the State Commission on 29.04.2020, the Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest may be executed. Further, if Mr. Sanjay Palangdar appears on 29.04.2020, before the State Commission, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh Application before the State Commission, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. Mr. Sanjay Palangdar shall not be arrested till the Application which if filed on 29.04.2020 is decided by the State Commission and it will be open to the State Commission to consider whether he is required to appear on future dates or his personal appearance on future dates be exempted.

With the aforesaid observations, the Present Appeal Execution stands disposed of.

Order Dasti.