-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 104 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 1. CWP-21314-2025 IMPROVEMENT TRUST PATIALA & ANOTHER …Petitioners Versus VIJAY KUMAR SINGLA AND OTHERS …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) 2. CWP-21317-2025 Improvement Trust Patiala & Another Sudesh Kumar Duggal and Others 3. CWP-21318-2025 Improvement Trust Patiala & Another Harmail Singh and Others 4. CWP-21319-2025 Improvement Trust Patiala & Another Paramjit Kaur and Others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate and Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate with Mr. Damanjeet Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1 (In CWP-21314-2025, CWP-21317-2025 & CWP-21318-2025) *** SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.05.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-21314-2025. 2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 06.08.2021 whereby respondent No.3-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (for short ‘District Commission’) has attached their bank account to the extent of ₹12,29,093/- and order dated 19.12.2022 whereby respondent No.2-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short ‘State Commission’) has dismissed their appeal. 3. The petitioner is a body corporate constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 2022. Respondent No.1-Vijay Kumar Singla filed a complaint before District Commission seeking possession of flat which vide order dated 16.03.2017 partly accepted the complaint and directed the petitioners to hand over physical possession of flat and to pay interest @12% per annum on the amount deposited before and after 07.11.2012. The petitioners preferred appeal before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2017. They filed revision petition No. 3613 of 2017 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘National Commission’) which was allowed vide order dated 05.06.2018 by holding that respondent No.1-Complainant shall be entitled to interest from the committed date of delivery of possession till the date of SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.05.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- actual delivery of possession. During the pendency of litigation between the parties, respondent No.1 filed application dated 11.05.2017 before District Commission under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘1986 Act’) seeking implementation of order dated 16.03.2017 which vide order dated 06.08.2021 attached the bank account of petitioners to the extent of ₹12,29,093/-. The petitioners preferred appeal against order dated 16.03.2017 before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that present petitions deserve to be dismissed in view of order dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-6912-2024 and upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Intra Court Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners expressed his inability to controvert applicability of the aforesaid judgment to the instant case. 6. In the wake of statement of both sides, the petitions stand dismissed. 7. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 27.05.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.05.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document