13.08.2026 Court No.2 Item No.20-21 sudipta IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 3962 of 2023 Bishnupada Bhattacharjee @ Nantu Bhattacharjee Vs. Quazi Md. Maksuduzzaman & Ors. with CO 3793 of 2023 Bishnupada Bhattacharjee @ Nantu Bhattacharjee Vs. Md. Ainul Kazi & Ors. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya Mr. Sounak Mondal Mr. Abhirup Halder Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharya …for the petitioner Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman Ms. Sunita Guha …for the opposite party no.1 1. Both the petitions being CO 3962 of 2023 and CO 3793 of 2023 are proposed to dispose of by a common order. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th July, 2023 and 23rd August, 2023. Briefly stated the facts are that the opposite party no.1 filed a consumer dispute case before the Dispute Redressal Forum bearing case no. CC/111/2013 against the proforma opposite party no. 3 and the petitioner in CO 3962 of 2023. The prayer made in this petition were seeking direction to hand over the completion certificate and 2 also to execute the deed of conveyance in the name of the opposite party no.1 in respect of the self-contained flat on first floor (Block 1) measuring an area of 850 sq.ft. to be erected or built on the southern side of the proposed building at municipal premises no. 15, Brojomoni Debya Road, Police Station – Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 700 061 with the proportionate undivided impartible share in the land of the said premises together with all amenities and facilities attached therein. The consumer forum decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. The matter went up to the Supreme Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum whereby the relief was granted to the opposite party no.1 / complainant for execution of the deed of conveyance in terms of agreement for sale. The Apex Court in SLP (C) no. 20768-20769 of 2019 titled as Bharati Bhattacharjee Vs. Quazi Md. Maksuduzzaman & Ors. dismissed the SLPs vide order dated 23rd August, 2022. 3. Pursuant to this, the execution case 13 of 2019 was filed before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur, for the execution of the conveyance deed. 3 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, Bishnupada Bhattacharjee @ Nantu Bhattacharjee, was the party before the District Consumer Disputes Forum as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It is a matter of record that the present petitioner had not challenged the order at any stage. However, interestingly, while the matter was at the stage of execution, the petitioner jumped into the fray and moved a frivolous application before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in execution petition seeking a strange order from the Executing Court that the Executing Court may narrate the role of the petitioner in compliance with the said order and also clear what amount is entitled in the considerable amount deposited by the decree-holder for participation and registration. 5. The Court is shocked to see such an application and furthermore is aghast to see the guts of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter has traveled upto the Supreme Court. The Apex Court of this land vide a detailed order gave the finality in March, 2022 and while the original complainant was struggling for getting the fruits of his long drawn litigation, the petitioner jumped into to further delay the proceedings. Even at the cost of the petition, it may be recalled that 4 the present petitioner who is admittedly an attesting witness did not challenge the order of the District Forum or the National Consumer Forum who had held in favour of the original complainant. This is a clear abuse of the process of the law. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the impugned orders, there is no directions against the present petition. 6. The Court considers that in such like cases heavy cost must be imposed so as to send a message that there should not be any effort to misuse or abuse the process of law. 7. Hence, both the revision petitions are dismissed upon imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- in each of the petitions. The petitioner is directed to pay the cost in favour of the opposite party / complainant within four weeks from date. 8. Consequently, connected pending applications to these revision petitions, if any, stand disposed of. 9. Department is directed to file a report before this Court in respect of compliance of this order as regards the payment of cost. 10. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is directed to dispose of the execution petition positively within three months. 5 11. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)