A.JAYALAKSHMI vs INTERNATIONAL LEASING LIMITED

IN this Revision Petition, the short point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable.

A few facts need to be stated for the disposal of this revision petition : The instant revision petitioners had filed complaint in No. 1478/92 before the District Forum, Bangalore (Urban), against the opposite party-M/s. International Leasing Limited. The said complaint case to be allowed. The District Forum directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5.0,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- alongwith interest at 18% p.a. etc. The complainants put that order in execution before the District Forum. It appears that the District Forum took the view that the execution may be proceeded only against some of the Directors and not against all the Directors. At the same time, it took the view that it is not in a position to execute the order and the order should be executed only in the City Civil Court. The operative portion of the order is as under : "The order of this Forum is directed to be sent to the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore for execution in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 making it clear that in so far as Sri B.R. Pai, Sri T. Mukunda and Sri B.P. Jhunjhunwala are concerned, the complainants cannot proceed against them for the reasons we have already mentioned and so also in respect of Sri G.V. Dorai Swamy, he having died. As far as Sri Hemanth Agarwal is concerned it is for the complainants to find out his correct address and help the Civil Court with the same for issue of notice."

It cannot be contended that the District Forum was wrong in holding that it is not in a position to execute the order of the District Forum and the order should be sent for execution to the City Civil Court. In that view of the matter the District Forum cannot be found fault with that (sic). At the same time, we are indeed of the view that if the District Forum felt that the order . in Complaint No. 1478/92 has to be sent for execution to the City Civil Court, it is for the City Civil Court, which will be the Executing Court, to decide the point in question. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It reads as under : "25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission-Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) in the case of an order against a Company, the registered office of the Company is situated, or (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution."

A careful perusal of the same would go to show that what is required to be sent for execution is the order of the Forum or the Commission, as the case may be. It is not as if the execution itself is being transferred to the oppropriate Civil Court. In that view of the matter, the Executing Court would be the City Civil Court itself. In this connection, Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code can be looked into with advantage. It reads as under : "38. A decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"

A careful perusal of the said section would go to show that a decree can be executed either by the Court which has passed the decree or by the Court to which the decree is transferred for execution. We hasten to add here that the said section becomes applicable by necessary implication having regard to the clear provisions reflected under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which enables the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, to send the order for execution to the appropriate Civil Court. It is certainly permissible for such Forum or Commission to send the same for execution to such Civil Court. Once when the order is sent to such Civil Court, it is that Civil Court which becomes the Executing Court.

FURTHER, Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code also can be looked into with advantage. It reads as under : "47(1). All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"

(Underlining supplied) The provisions of Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code are self-explanatory and it is not necessary for us to dilate further. It is clear from the said provision that it is the Executing Court which has to resolve all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Forum or the Commission which sends the order passed by it to some other Court for execution will have to leave this question only to be determined by the Civil Court. Looked at from any point of view therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum in this case has clearly erred in giving a finding on certain aspects relating to execution and thereafter sending the order passed by it for execution to City Civil Court. Hence, the order passed by the District Forum will have to be modified.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order dated 6.8.1996 passed by the Bangalore District FORum (Urban) directing that the order passed by it in Complaint No. 1478/92 be sent to the City Civil Court for execution is confirmed. However, the findings given by the District FORum relating to the liability or otherwise of certain directors of the opposite party are set aside leaving it to be decided by the Executing Court. Revision Petition partly allowed.