JUDGMENT - W.M. SAMBRE, President :---Heard Mr. D. A. Nalawade, Counsel for the appellant. He contented that the terms of compromise have not been complied by the respondent, the original complainant. Therefore, he has filed the application before the District Forum. The 1st application before the District Forum was that terms of the agreement have not been complied with by the respondent and therefore, he filed M.C.A. before learned District Forum, alleging that there are lapses on the part of the appellant and therefore, he should be punished for the same. This matter was pending before the District Forum, against which this appeal came to be filed before this Commission. This Commission admitted the matter and called for the record. Therefore, proceedings before the District Forum, could not be proceeded with. According to Mr. Nalawade, the Misc. Appln. filed is without substance for the reason that the respondent, original complainant has not complied with the conditions mentioned in the compromise application dated 25-3-1991. He contented that unless and until the tractor was transferred in favour of this appellant, original respondent No. 2, this appellant was under no obligation to part with the money to the respondent original complainant, or to his Bank. Certain amount was to be paid to the Bank and Rs. 5500/- were to be paid to the original complainant before 31-12-1991. The Misc. Application came to be filed for non-compliance after serving a notice to this appellant. After a period of 5 months a notice was served in he month of May by the original complainant. This appellant has taken a stand that unless and until the tractor is transferred in he name of this appellant, the appellants are not under obligation to pay the amount. This was the argument of Mr. Nalawade, before this Commission. He also states that original complainant has not taken any steps for transfer of the tractor to the appellant. He also states that the tractor has been sold without consultation with the appellant to the 3rd party. The aforesaid tractor was sold as per information of the respondent complainant after a period of 2 years. Mr. Nalawade further states that one Mr. Kuber Patil had offered an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 17-2-1992 for purchase of the tractor. But still the said tractor was not sold to Shri Patil. The aforesaid tractor was sold as per information of the respondent complainant after a period of 2 years. Mr. Nalawade further states that one Mr. Kuber Patil had offered an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 17-2-1992 for purchase of the tractor. But still the said tractor was not sold to Shri Patil. It was sold after a period of 2 years to somebody else for Rs. 86,000/- only. 2. The complainant has stated that this offer was made about purchase of the tractor by filing an application only without depositing the amount. Therefore, the Bank was not in obligation to transact with the said parties. 3. After hearing Mr. Nalawade and the complainant Mr. Pawar and after going through the record as well as the agreement of compromise reached between the parties, we are of the view that the appellant, respondent No. 2 was under obligation to pay the amount to the Bank and to the complainant first. Thereafter, the complainant was under obligation to transfer the said tractor in favour of the appellant. Mr. Nalawades contention is that the complainant was under obligation to transfer the tractor first. Under no circumstances, it can be accepted, unless and until the amount was to the bank and the amount of Rs. 5500/- was paid to the complainant, the transfer of the tractor could not be effected. In respect of notice issued by the respondent, complainant in the month of May, i.e. after a period of 5 months, the appellant No. 2 did not comply with the conditions mentioned in the agreement, and therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the Misc. Application before the District Forum, against which this appeal came to be filed. The complaint raised by Mr. Nalawade, as discussed above, can not be accepted as his party did not perform his part of the agreement about the payment of the money to the complainant and the Bank as agreed to and therefore, this appeal against the Misc. Appln. under no circumstances can be sustained and therefore, it stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the respondent (original complainant) within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order. The Counsel for respondent No. 2 is present and is directed to take a note of the order. *****