JUDGMENT:- (1) THIS revisional application has been preferred challenging the order dated 29.1. 2007, as passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Alipore (hereinafter referred to as Forum), West Bengal in execution Case No. 17 of 2001 arising out of D.F. Case No. 357 of 2001. (2) CASE of the petitioner is that in the year 2000, the opposite party submitted a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) alleging therein that the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 entered into an agreement on 9.6.1995 for purchase of two residential flats, as described in the schedule of the said complaint, for a total consideration of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The complainant alleged that he made payment of Rs. 2,68,000/- on different dates under proper receipts. In spite of such payment and the request by the complainant, the opposite party, the petitioner herein, failed to deliver possession of those flats by way of receiving the balance consideration amount. As such, the complainant had to file the complaint before the forum praying for appropriate reliefs. (3) THE opposite party did not contest the case although, the notice was received by him. As such, the case was disposed of ex parte whereby the prayer of the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to deliver the flats in question in favour of the complainant by accepting the balance amount of consideration within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which liberty was given to the complainant to execute such order in accordance with law. (4) AS against this, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission). After hearing the parties, the State Commission discussed the matter in detail by pointing out that in spite of service of notice, the O.P. /jdr did not prefer to contest the matter. The State commission further was of the opinion that as the appeal was preferred before it after the expiry of the statutory period, so it was not maintainable and consequently the appeal was rejected. The State commission further was of the opinion that as the appeal was preferred before it after the expiry of the statutory period, so it was not maintainable and consequently the appeal was rejected. (5) AS against this, a revisional application being C.O. No. 3815 of 2005 was preferred before this Court when the learned Single Judge by his order dated 3.7.2006 was pleased to reject the revisional application and thereby did not interfere with the order, so passed by the State commission. Against this order, no further step was taken by the present petitioners. As such, the ex parte order, as was passed, attained finality. (6) AS the present petitioners, did not comply with the order, so passed by the forum, so the complainant filed one execution petition which was numbered as Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. Although, notice was served upon the JDRs they did not take any step for compliance of the order so passed against them by the forum. As such, a prayer was made before the said Forum praying for delivery of possession of the flats in question through the Forum. When the matter came before the forum, then such prayer for delivery of possession through the agency of the forum was allowed on 29.1.2007 and it was directed that possession of those flats would be taken through the authorised person of the forum and in case of necessity with the help of police authority. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the forum, this revisional application has been preferred. Learned Advocate for the petitioners/jdrs argued that the order so passed by the forum is palpably illegal as there was a direction for attachment of the property in question, as provided under Section 25 of the Act. According to him, when such order was passed, at that time there was no provision for attachment under Section 25 of the Act and such provision came into existence only on 15.3.2003, after the impugned order was passed. As such, he claimed that the order of attachment, so passed by the forum was without jurisdiction and invalid and as such, it should be set aside immediately. As such, he claimed that the order of attachment, so passed by the forum was without jurisdiction and invalid and as such, it should be set aside immediately. (7) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners further argued that the order in question was illegal in view of the fact that it was signed by two members of the Forum and there was nothing to show that the President of the forum also signed the same. In this respect he has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Act which provides as follows:-"every proceeding refer to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together;. . . . . . . . . . Section 2a provides as follows: Every order made by the District Forum under subsection (1) shall be signed by its president and the member or members who conducted the proceeding. " (8) BY pointing out to the copy of the impugned order, the learned advocate for the petitioners submits that it clearly shows that it was signed by two members and not by the President and as such, the order is illegal in the eye of law. (9) THIRDLY, the learned Advocate for the petitioners further argued that the impugned order suffers from illegality as because the order for delivery of possession was passed by way of attaching the property in question although, the entire consideration money was not paid. (10) IN support of his argument, learned Advocate for the petitioners cited decisions reported in Cal LT 1996 (1) HC 254 (Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr. v. State Consumer Redressal Forum and Ors.); 2006 (10) SCC 704 , (Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Spice Telecom, Bangalore); AIR 1987 SC 535 , (Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra) and 1994 (4) SCC 325 (Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah and Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust). (11) LEARNED Advocate for the opposite party argued that the impugned order was not passed for attachment of the property in question, as provided in Section 25 of the Act, as was amended with effect from 15.3.2003. According to him, there was a clerical mistake in the office of the forum whereby the order passed in Execution Case No. 3 of 2006 was wrongly typed to be an order in Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. According to him, there was a clerical mistake in the office of the forum whereby the order passed in Execution Case No. 3 of 2006 was wrongly typed to be an order in Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. As it was a clerical mistake, so the matter was referred to the forum for clarification and subsequently by the Order dated 8.6.2007 a clear clarification was given by the forum, comprising of its President and two members whereby it was stated that the order No. 17 dated 29. 1. 2007 in Execution Case No. 3 of 2006 was wrongly typed and incorporated as Order No. 58 dated 29.1.2007 in Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. According to him, in view of such clarification there cannot be any doubt that the original order was passed on 29.1.2007 in Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. Both the orders, as passed, have been placed before this Court for consideration. According to the learned Advocate for the opposite parties, from those orders, there cannot be any doubt regarding the clarification, as given by the forum on 08.6.2007. As such, he prays for rejection of the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner. (12) SO far as the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that only two members signed the order in question, he argued that simply on that ground an order of the forum cannot be said to be illegal. In this respect he relied upon the provisions of Section 29a of the Act which runs as follows:-"no act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State commission or the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the Constitution thereof. " (13) IN support of his contention, learned Advocate for the opposite party heavily relied upon the decision reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550 (Indian bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.). (14) REGARDING the argument that no order of delivery of possession could be passed by the Forum unless the entire consideration money is paid, he submits that his client was always willing to pay that balance amount. But as the petitioners intentionally did not receive the same, so he could not pay it to the petitioners. (14) REGARDING the argument that no order of delivery of possession could be passed by the Forum unless the entire consideration money is paid, he submits that his client was always willing to pay that balance amount. But as the petitioners intentionally did not receive the same, so he could not pay it to the petitioners. (15) I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides and also perused the decisions, as cited at the bar. There is no dispute that the District Consumer Forum was moved at the instance of the complainant for redressal. That case was finally disposed of in favour of the complainant and the matter reached its finality, when the High Court practically confirmed the decision, as passed by the State Commission in the appeal preferred against the order of the Forum. Naturally, when the complaint was successful and when the JDRs did not comply with the direction of the Forum, so an execution case was filed in respect of the flats in question. It must be said that there is no bar for the complainant to file such execution case for getting delivery of possession of the fiats in question since the forum decided in favour of the complainant and it was confirmed by the State Commission. Now the trouble arose elsewhere. It appears that on 29.1.2007, an order was passed by the Forum in that execution case, the copy of which was allegedly served upon the JDRs. It appears from the said copy that an order of attachment was passed presumably as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. But, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the forum had no authority to pass an attachment order in view of the fact that such provision was not there when the impugned order was passed. There cannot be any dispute in respect of this contention that at the relevant time the provision of attachment was not there. But it appears from the said order that there was palpably a clerical mistake in the order. If we look into the property, as mentioned in the said order, then it will appear that another property, which was not the subject matter of the dispute in between the parties was attached. But it appears from the said order that there was palpably a clerical mistake in the order. If we look into the property, as mentioned in the said order, then it will appear that another property, which was not the subject matter of the dispute in between the parties was attached. According to the complainant/opposite party in fact the said order was presumably passed in Execution Case No. 3 of 2006 and it was wrongly incorporated and tagged in Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. According to him since there was a clerical mistake in this respect, so, for such fault on the part of the officials of the Court, a party should not suffer. In this respect, learned Advocate for the opposite party has cited decision reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 275 (Abdul Rashid v. Sri Sitaramji Maharaj brajman and Ors.) wherein it was decided that the act of Court should not prejudice any body. Be that as it may, since there was confusion in respect of the order in question, so the matter was placed before the forum on 8.6.2007 when the President and two other members of the forum clarified the entire matter and it was explained that in fact by Order No. 58 dated 29.1.2007, passed in Execution Case No. 17 of 2001 there was a direction for giving possession of the flats in favour of the complainant/decree-holder through the agency of the forum. In that order, there was no mention that the property in question was attached. If we look into the provisions of Section 25 which stood before the amendment, then it will appear that it was mentioned therein that in order to give effect to its order, the forum can take step in execution in the same manner as if it was a decree or order made by a Court in a pending suit. It goes without saying that in an execution case the Civil Court can always direct for delivery of possession. Since the forum has taken such a step, as it appears from the clarification dated 8.6.2007, I am of opinion that there was nothing illegal in it, as claimed by the petitioners/jdrs. It goes without saying that in an execution case the Civil Court can always direct for delivery of possession. Since the forum has taken such a step, as it appears from the clarification dated 8.6.2007, I am of opinion that there was nothing illegal in it, as claimed by the petitioners/jdrs. (16) SO far as the argument that the impugned order is illegal, since it was not signed by the President of the forum, it appears that it is the admitted position that the original order in question was signed by two members and not by the President. As per provisions of Section 29a of the Act it is clear that no order of the forum will be considered to be invalid on technical ground. Learned Advocate for the petitioners/jdrs submits that in the absence of the President, the members of the forum can sign in an order provided one of the members has got the requisite qualification to be a District Judge. According to him, both the members who signed in the impugned order did not possess such qualification and as such, the order, so passed should be treated to be invalid one. But, I have already pointed out that as per Section 29a, on the ground of technicalities an order of the Forum cannot be held to be invalid. Moreover, by the order dated 8.6.2007 this matter was taken care of by the Forum and a clarification was given by the President and two other members of the forum to the effect as to what was the actual order that was passed by the Forum in connection with the execution case. To my mind, this clarification is sufficient to hold that the order of delivery of possession, as passed in the execution case was a valid one. Learned Advocate for the petitioners/jdrs argued that the forum had no inherent power to recall/ review its own order as has been provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. But, in the decision reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550 (supra) the Honble apex Court observed:- "the authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as fraud and Justice never dwell together. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the Constitution of the Tribunal or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Courts business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Similarly where the Court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake (emphasis supplied) which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order. " (17) IN the decision reported in 2004 (1) SCC 305 (Secretary, thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha), the apex Court observed that the 1986 Act should be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully having regard to the additional, extended jurisdiction conferred under Section 3 of the Act. (18) I have already pointed out that from the decisions cited above that there cannot be any doubt that the action taken by the forum should not be discarded merely on technical ground. It appears that the action, so taken by the forum, appears to be legal notwithstanding the fact that there was a mistake in typing the impugned order dated 29. 1. 2007 in the correct case number, This mistake was taken care of by the forum by passing a subsequent order of clarification and I find no reason in not accepting such clarification to be correct. Under such circumstances, i am of opinion that the forum was justified in directing delivery of possession of the flats in question in favour of the decree-holder through its own agency pursuant to the execution proceeding, as was started against the JDRs. It is correct that without paying the entire consideration money, the concerned flats should not be handed over to the decree-holder. But, that question can be left for consideration of the forum itself when actual physical possession of the concerned flats will be delivered to the decree holders/complainants and in doing so the forum can always insist upon the payment of the balance consideration money to be paid by the DHR in favour of the JDRs, if not already paid/deposited. But, that question can be left for consideration of the forum itself when actual physical possession of the concerned flats will be delivered to the decree holders/complainants and in doing so the forum can always insist upon the payment of the balance consideration money to be paid by the DHR in favour of the JDRs, if not already paid/deposited. (19) THERE FORE, from my above discussion, I am of opinion that the action, as taken by the forum in the execution case appears to be legal and valid and under such circumstances, I do not find any scope for interference with the order so passed by the forum directing delivery of possession of the flats in question in favour of the decree-holder/ complainant. (20) IN the result, the revisional application is dismissed on contest but without costs. The impugned order dated 29.1.2007, as passed by the district Consumer Disputes Redressal Forurn, West Bengal in Execution case No. 17 of 2001 is affirmed. The direction, as passed by the forum in respect of the delivery of possession of the flats in question in favour of the decree holder, is confirmed, subject to the condition that while actually handing over the possession of those flats in favour of the decree-holder, the forum should insist upon the payment of the balance amount of consideration money in favour of the judgment-debtor by the decree holder, if it is not already paid/deposited. (21) SEND a copy of this judgment to the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas at once for information and necessary action. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on urgent basis.