At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Punjeet Bajaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Sharique Hussain, Advocate.
The revision petitions are directed against the order of the State Commission dated 19.11.2010 passed in execution proceedings. The consumer complaint was decided on 30.01.2008 and the appeal against the order of the District Forum in the consumer complaint was dismissed on 03.10.2008. The order of the State Commission was not challenged and, therefore, became final. The complainant thereafter instituted execution proceedings in which orders were passed by the District Forum as well as by State Commission on different dates. As noted earlier the petitioners are challenging the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of the order of the District Forum in the execution proceedings.
2. It had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4631 of 2019 Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K.A. Nagamani, that a revision petition against an order passed in the execution proceedings is not tenable. The aforesaid decision to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-
“7.6 A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. V. Nandan Singh & Ors., has similarly held that execution proceedings cannot be regarded as a continuation of the Suit.
7.7 We affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court and Patna High Court. Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merit of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decre3e passed in the substantive dispute.
7.8 There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.
7.9 In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S 21 (b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which has rightly set aside the Order passed by the National Commissi
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
on on the ground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings.” 3. For the reasons stated hereinabove the revision petitions are not maintainable and are hereby dismissed.