All these appeals are preferred by the original accused/opposite party against the common order passed in ten execution applications by which the applicants made by the original accused/ petitioners  for conversion of all those execution application from section 27 of Consumer Protection Act  to Section 25 of said act.

                We have heard the appellants advocate at the stage of admission of appeal and perused the impugned order and documents filed on record. The appellant’s advocate has drawn our attention to the admission given by original applicants/ respondents herein in cross examination. The said admission to the effect that the execution applications are made for execution of original order passed in the complaints, with no separate application is made under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, that it is not mentioned in the execution applications that as original order passed in the complaints are not complied with, the opposite party be punished, that in affidavit also, it is not mentioned that the opposite party/accused be punished and that the said affidavit is filed for compliance of the original order passed in the complaints. Thus, according to the learned advocate of the appellants, the said admission given by the respondent herein show that the execution application does not filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act  but they filed under Section 25 of the said act. He therefore argued that the Forum erred not rejecting the applications of the appellants which were made for converting those applications under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act.

                The District Forum rejected all those applications by passing the common impugned order on the ground that it is the choice of the original complainant to make application either under Section 25 or under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act and the application made by the accused and therefore prayer made in the application cannot be allowed.

                It is  seen that the applications as above were move by the respective accused/appellants at the final stage of hearing of all these execution applications. Therefore at the said stage there was no question of conversation of those execution applications has made under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act by which the applications under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act. It is rightly observed by the Forum that it is the choice of the complainant to file execution application either under Section 27 or 25 of Consumer Protection Act. It is for the Forum to decide after  final hearing whether the said complaints/ applications can be granted or not. Therefore the admissions as above given  by original complainants in their respective cross examination can be considered only after final hearing while decided those complaints. Accordingly we hold that all these appeals deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

All the appeals Nos. A/15/01, A/15/02, A/15/03, A15/04, A15/05, A/15/06, A/15/07, A/15/08, A/15/09, A/15/10 are hereby dismissed with limine with the observation that the Forum shall consider the aforesaid admissions of the respective complainants while deciding all the execution application finally.