Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J: 1. Order impugned dated 19th May, 2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in M.A. No.115 of 2014 arising out of F.A. No. 620 of 2013 rejecting the petitioners/developers’ application praying for an order issuing direction upon the opposite party no.1 to show cause as to why appropriate proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act should not be drawn up against him and thereafter to draw up a proceeding and appropriate order may be passed and the petitioners/developers have also prayed for an order directing the respondent no.1/complainant to restore possession of flats A-3 and A-4 of the premises in question to the developers/petitioners is under challenge in this revisional application. 2. In the present case the opposite party no.1/complainant claimed that the petitioners/developers were promoters. The complainant along with proforma opposite parties being the proforma respondents entered into a development agreement with the developer on May 24, 2007 for development at premises no.5, Russa Road, South 3rd Lane, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700033. The development agreement contained certain terms and conditions. The complainants alleged before the District Forum constituted under Consumer Protection Act that in terms of development agreement complainants were entitled to get three complete habitable flats, two car parking spaces, two office rooms, one puja room, entire roof of Block ‘A’ of the building at the said premises. It was alleged that the developers failed to hand over complainants’ allocation including two office rooms with completion certificate within 55 days from the date of taking possession of the said tenanted portion. Since the developers did not hand over possession of the complainants’ allotment including office space with completion certificate, the complainants being the consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed the complaint case being CC No.107/2012 claiming compensation and a direction upon the developers to hand over khas possession of three complete habitable flats, two car parking spaces, two office rooms, one puja room, entire roof of Block ‘A” of the building at 5, Russa Road, South 3rd Lane, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700033 along with completion certificate issued by K.M.C. to the complainants. Further prayer was made for direction upon the developers to pay Rs.3 lacs to the complainants as compensation for non-completion of the project and to hand over khas possession of complainants’ allotment along with completion certificate within 55 days from the date of taking possession of old structure, etc. The complaint case was contested by the developers/petitioners by filing written objection. Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the complaint case in favour of the complainants/opposite parties. The developers were directed to hand over the complete property in question as per development agreement along with completion certificate within one month from the date of passing the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution in accordance with law. The developers were also directed to pay sum of Rs.3 lacs as compensation for non-delivery of the allocated area within 55 days and a sum of Rs.5 lacs for mental pain and agony and cost of Rs.25,000/- as costs of the present proceedings, total amounting to Rs.8,25,000/- within one month from the date of passing the order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of default till realisation. Against the order of the District Forum the developers/ petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being First Appeal No.820 of 2013 alleging that the District Forum have passed the decree without going through the development agreement dated 24th May, 2007 and as per terms and conditions of the deed of agreement for development it would appear that contractual obligation with regard to hand over vacant possession of the said premises to the developers within twelve weeks from the date of agreement and upon getting the possession, developers would complete the proposed building within thirtysix months and to hand over possession within fiftyfive days thereafter. According to the developers, no cause of action has arisen to initiate such proceeding, etc. The developers/ petitioners questioned the quantification of damages so awarded. According to the developers/petitioners, the District Forum ought to have dismissed the said case. In that appeal the developers/appellants before the State Forum moved an application for stay of the decree passed by the District Forum. In the meantime, the execution case was filed by the complainant/opposite party. The developers/ petitioners questioned the quantification of damages so awarded. According to the developers/petitioners, the District Forum ought to have dismissed the said case. In that appeal the developers/appellants before the State Forum moved an application for stay of the decree passed by the District Forum. In the meantime, the execution case was filed by the complainant/opposite party. The District Forum after hearing both sides and on perusal of papers on record directed that all further proceedings of the execution case would remain stayed till the next date i.e. 8th October, 2013 and interim order was extended from time to time and continuing till today. In course of pendency of this appeal it is alleged that the complainant taking advantage of absence of the developers/petitioners herein with the help of complainant’s family members including female members in utter disregard and in utter disobedience of the order passed by the Hon’ble Commission broke open the padlock on the collapsible gate of the aforesaid flats and entered into the said flats without even any order passed by any competent court of law. It was alleged that a complaint was lodged with local police station but no action was initiated on the same. The developers/petitioners filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating the entire facts and circumstances. The application was moved before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to direct the Officer-in-Charge, Jadavpur police station to treat the application being case No. AC 210 of 2014 as F.I.R. and to investigate the same. It was alleged in the affidavit that the complainant has forcefully entered into the flats allocated to him in clear violation of the order of stay passed by the appellate forum. The complainant has clearly interfered in course of administration of justice. It was alleged that the complainant has taken properties in question which he was not otherwise entitled to till the disposal of the appeal and accordingly, a prayer was made to issue show-cause as to why appropriate proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should not be drawn up against the complainant and for further consequential action for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the State Commissioner. However, prayer was made for restoring back of the flat A-3 and A-4 of the premises in question. However, prayer was made for restoring back of the flat A-3 and A-4 of the premises in question. The said application was heard on contest. By an order dated 6th March, 2014 the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner passed an order that the miscellaneous application should be heard along with merits of the appeal otherwise the point raised in miscellaneous application cannot be adjudicated properly. Accordingly, a direction was given that miscellaneous application bearing No.115 of 2014 be heard along with merit of the appeal. However, on prayer of developers’ learned Counsel a different date of hearing of the appeal was fixed since the developers/petitioners wanted to challenge the order dated 6th March, 2014 before the appropriate forum. 3. The developers/petitioners moved the revisional application being C.O. 778 of 2014 before this Hon’ble Court. Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court after hearing both sides disposed of the revisional application with a finding that the order impugned is not sustainable and accordingly, the order was set aside. A direction was given upon the State Commission to hear out the said miscellaneous application being M.A.115 of 2014 independently and not along with the appeal itself after affording an opportunity to the opposite party to file written objection thereof. This Court passed an order that the State Commission would make all endeavour to dispose of the said application within four weeks from the date of communication of that order. It was mentioned that this Court did not go into the merit. Thereafter, the miscellaneous application was heard by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the miscellaneous application was disposed of by the order impugned dated 19th May, 2014. While considering the miscellaneous application the State Commission recorded that the complainant contended specifically that partial possession was given without issuing possession letter. The Appellate Forum considered the evidence laid down by both sides at the time of trial and referred to answer given against question no.43 when it was recorded that opposite party no.1 being the developer had only handed over the flats without possession letter and copy of completion certificate allowing the complainant to do extra work as per his choice. The complainant made various works by appointing men and mistries at his own costs and said flats were under his possession and further under his lock and key. 4. The complainant made various works by appointing men and mistries at his own costs and said flats were under his possession and further under his lock and key. 4. However, considering the evidence on record as well as the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties the Appellate Forum was of the view that the contention of the developers/appellants as raised in the miscellaneous application is not sustainable. The miscellaneous application was dismissed and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 16th October, 2014. 5. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/developers submitted that neither the District Forum nor the Appellate Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute or the appeal. He referred Section 12(A) of West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. He submitted that the dispute is not covered under Section 6 of the aforementioned Act. 6. Learned Counsel tried to impress to this Court referring Section 2(g) which defines ‘promoter’. According to him, neither the District Forum nor the Appellate Forum has power and authority to pass an order for specific performance of contract. He submitted that the learned forum at the first stage definitely exercised a jurisdiction, which is not vested on it. Therefore, the proceeding itself is bad. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement. Reference was also made by this Hon’ble Court by an order passed upon an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. Learned Counsel submitted that this Court has ample power to interfere specially when there is injustice to a party to a proceeding and when the order passed by the tribunal is without jurisdiction. According to him, this Court is not powerless to interfere in such a situation when the complainant himself violated the stay order granted by the appellate forum and took law in his own hand and forcefully entered and took over the possession of the flats in question. 8. Learned Counsel submitted that the prayer made in the complaint application was for delivery of vacant possession of flat no.A-3 and A-4 with two office rooms etc. 8. Learned Counsel submitted that the prayer made in the complaint application was for delivery of vacant possession of flat no.A-3 and A-4 with two office rooms etc. with completion certificate and the tribunal was also pleased to pass an order that in case there is non-compliance of the order, the affected party was granted leave to execute the decree but the opposite party did not have patience, he before disposal of the appeal took possession in clear violation of the order of stay granted by the State Forum. 9. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Court below failed to apply its mind. Therefore, on that score also this Court should set aside the order passed by the learned State Forum in miscellaneous application being no.115 of 2014. 10. Learned Counsel also cited few judgments in support of his submissions. He emphasised upon the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2005(7) Supreme Today 610 (M/s. S.B.P. & Co. Vs. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. & anr.). In paragraph 18 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that it would certainly include the court as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act and would also include the other courts and may even include a special tribunal like the Consumer Forum. However, when the defendant to an action before a judicial authority raises the plea that there is an arbitration agreement and the subject matter of the claim is covered by the agreement and the plaintiff or the person who has approached the judicial authority for relief, disputes the same, the judicial authority, in the absence of any restriction in the Act, has necessarily to decide whether, in fact, there is in existence a valid arbitration agreement and whether the dispute that is sought to be raised before it, is covered by the arbitration clause. 11. Learned Counsel also referred another decision reported in 2012(3) C.L.J. 291 (Smt. Rita Das Vs. Mrs. Jayashri Ghosh & ors.) in which the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court held that the consumer forum is not competent to pass decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale. 12. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party on the otherhand submitted that the developers/petitioners did not raise this point at any point of time either before the District Forum or before the State Forum. 13. Mr. 12. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party on the otherhand submitted that the developers/petitioners did not raise this point at any point of time either before the District Forum or before the State Forum. 13. Mr. Ghosh submitted that instead of taking the jurisdictional point they themselves filed affidavit-in-opposition against the complaint case. They have contested and argued the matter. The case was finally decided by passing a decree by the District Commission. 14. Mr. Ghosh submitted that this is not the end of the matter. The developers/ petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Forum. They also moved an application for stay and obtained an order of stay passed by the State Forum. 15. Mr. Ghosh submitted it was a specific case of the complainant/ opposite party that he was handed over flats which were not complete in terms of the agreement, no completion certificate was given to him. The time limit so prescribed for handing over flats was not obeyed. The complainant/opposite party had to suffer mental agony for which he also claimed compensation, which was allowed by the District Forum. 16. Mr. Ghosh submitted that since these points were not taken at any stage of the proceeding before the District Forum or even before the Appellate Forum there was no occasion to consider and decide the same. At this stage developers are estopped from raising the plea. 17. Mr. Ghosh submitted that developers/petitioners are estopped from arguing the matter on those points since there is no such decision. According to Mr. Ghosh, the petitioners/developers have submitted to the jurisdiction deliberately and they have contested the proceeding. The application which was initially not heard, kept pending for a decision on merit at the time of final disposal of the appeal was heard and disposed of at their instance when they obtained order from this Court in their favour directing the State Commission to hear out and decide the application. 18. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the Consumer Protection Act was amended by Act 50 of 1993. The word ‘housing construction’ was included by the State Legislature in Section 2(o) of the Act defining ‘service’. 19. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the legislature has every right to make such amendment and creating right to challenge the impugned action relating to housing construction which is included in the definition of ‘service’ before the District Forum. 20. Mr. The word ‘housing construction’ was included by the State Legislature in Section 2(o) of the Act defining ‘service’. 19. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the legislature has every right to make such amendment and creating right to challenge the impugned action relating to housing construction which is included in the definition of ‘service’ before the District Forum. 20. Mr. Ghosh submitted that Section 6 of West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 specifies the adjudication of disputes. According to Mr. Ghosh, in view of that Section any purchaser may, if he has any dispute, regarding the purchase of any flat, make an application. But in the instant case there is no such sale or purchase. It was initially a development agreement on the basis of which the developers/petitioners were obliged to hand over owner’s allocation within the specified period of time but that was not done. Therefore, according to Mr. Ghosh, the provision of the aforesaid Act of 1993 has no manner of application in the instant case. 21. Mr. Ghosh submitted that in similar situation the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of (Cicily Kalarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory) reported in (2012)8 SCC 524 held that the legislature has provided for a statutory-remedy and the High Court cannot bypass it. Hence, direction was issued through the Registrars of the Hon’ble High Courts not to entertain the petition challenging the order of National Commission. 22. Mr. Ghosh submitted that in the present case the remedy of the petitioners if at all there be any, is only before the National Commission not before the Hon’ble High Court. He submitted the petitioners, as it appears, are aggrieved against the order of State Forum. Therefore, he is to question the order if the petitioner is at all advised before the National Forum. According to him, this revisional application should not be entertained by this Court since not maintainable. 23. Mr. Ghosh submitted these are all factual matters. This Hon’ble Court cannot decide under Article 227 nor there is any scope to reassess the evidence laid before the District Forum specially when the appeal is pending and the Appellate Forum in seisin of the appeal. 24. Mr. Ghosh submitted that this revisional application should fail on that score. 23. Mr. Ghosh submitted these are all factual matters. This Hon’ble Court cannot decide under Article 227 nor there is any scope to reassess the evidence laid before the District Forum specially when the appeal is pending and the Appellate Forum in seisin of the appeal. 24. Mr. Ghosh submitted that this revisional application should fail on that score. He further cited another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in case of (Dullichand Finance & Leasing Ltd. Vs. Abbasur Rahaman & anr.) reported in (2015)2 C.L.J. (Cal) page 424 when similar question arose and this Hon’ble Court dismissed the revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India holding that as per statute and guideline of Apex Court the revisional application is not maintainable. According to learned Single Judge, against such order of State Commission one and only more exhaustive remedy available by way of an appeal before the National Commission. According to learned Single Judge, High Court should not entertain this type of revisional application. 25. Mr. Ghosh cited another judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of (Ravi Kant Srivastave Vs. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty & anr.) reported in (2016)1 C.L.J. (Cal) 398 wherein it was held appeal or revision should not be entertained against an order of the learned State Commission before the Hon’ble High Court and this is how the application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution was rejected. 26. Mr. Ghosh then cited a Hon’ble Division Bench judgment on this Court reported in A.I.R. 2005 Calcutta 108 (Mandira Mookerjee Vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and ors.) wherein this High Court held that the Court is not supposed to limit the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the wisdom of the legislature unless it offends any statute or some other law. Provisions of 1986 Act do not offend any statute or any other law. On the other hand, Section 3 of the 1986 Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. 27. Mr. Ghosh submitted the District Forum as well as the State Forum is appropriate authority to dispose of this type of case and there is no doubt in that regard. He also submitted this was also decided before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 28. 27. Mr. Ghosh submitted the District Forum as well as the State Forum is appropriate authority to dispose of this type of case and there is no doubt in that regard. He also submitted this was also decided before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 28. Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is undisputed that there is a development agreement between the developers/petitioners and the opposite party/ complainant. There were some terms and conditions for handing over flats and office room etc. The complainant was aggrieved against developers’ conduct. The flats were handed over without completion certificate and this has come out in evidence, at the time of cross-examination, it was specifically recorded by the District Forum and also relied upon the State Commission. These are all findings of facts and matters of records. These findings of facts under no circumstances could be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When it is established before the two Forums that incomplete flats were delivered and completion certificate was not given in terms of the development agreement, there cannot be any question of forcible occupancy of taking over possession. These are all factual findings. Therefore, these findings of both Forums should not be interfered with by the Hon’ble High Court. The question, as raised by Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the developers/petitioners, is that the Tribunal whether had jurisdiction or not? He emphasised on the provisions of Section 12(A) of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. However, it would be very relevant to note the provisions of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act which clearly indicates that any purchaser may, if he has any dispute regarding the purchase of any flat, make an application in such form as may be prescribed to such officer as the State Government may apply for adjudication of the dispute in such manner as may be prescribed. But unfortunately there is no sale or purchase involved in this case. It was a development agreement entered into by and between the parties. Therefore, Section 12(A) has no manner of application in the instant case. To that extent, the argument advanced by Mr. Jha is of no substance and as such rejected. But unfortunately there is no sale or purchase involved in this case. It was a development agreement entered into by and between the parties. Therefore, Section 12(A) has no manner of application in the instant case. To that extent, the argument advanced by Mr. Jha is of no substance and as such rejected. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is very relevant. The finding made by this Court is that the Civil Court can try all kinds of suits even then specific forums are created with specific purpose related to specific matters. There is no bar in establishing parallel forum or by express or implied provisions to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court through legislation. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is a valid piece of legislation creating specific Forum for specific purpose in relation to specific matters. Therefore, this Revisional Court is of the view that this Court is not supposed to limit the jurisdiction conferred upon the District and State Forum by the wisdom of the legislature unless it offends any statute or some other law. It is now settled that legislative wisdom have a supremacy if the legislation is made by the legislature dealing with a specific matter, unless and until the Act is upset by a competent court of law the provision of act creating a specific forum is always available to service to the litigant who would come within the definition clause defining service of consumer under Act of 1986. 29. Therefore, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court. This Act is a special Act creating a special forum and the dispute is definitely covered by the provisions under Sections 2(o), (g) and (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the District Forum as well as the Appellate Forum has got jurisdiction to decide the matter. 30. In that view of the matter, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/developers are of no substance. This revisional application is of no merit and the same is dismissed.