AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
A letter of request has been received from the advocate of the petitioner dated 20.11.2019 whereby request has been made to dispose of the matter after hearing the other party as he is unable to attend the proceedings. Therefore, the arguments of the other party are heard, I have perused the record and I proceed to dispose of the revision petition.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4 th March, 2016 in Appeal No.25/2016 of the petitioner against the order dated 29.1.2016 of the District Forum in execution case No.95/2010. It is apparent that vide the present revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order in appeal against the order in execution of the decree by the District Forum dated 29.1.2016.
Section 21(b) of the Act confers the jurisdiction upon the National Commission for entertaining a Revision Petition. Section 21(b) reads as under:
Jurisdiction of the National Commission. - Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction- (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any con-sumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The bare reading of this provision clearly shows that the Revision Petitions are maintainable only against the order of the State Commission in any consumer dispute. The issue whether the order of the State Commission in Execution Petition is an order in a consumer dispute or not had been analysed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Karnataka Housing Board vs. K. A. Nagamani, (2019) 6 SCC 424." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the execution proceedings are different than the consumer disputes and an order passed in appeal in execution proceedings by the State Commission cannot be considered to be an order passed in a consumer dispute and hence, the Revision Petition cannot be filed against such order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a 14 consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the 'consumer dispute'.
7.4. xxxxxxxxxxxx
7.5. xxxxxxxxxxxx
7.6 xxxxxxxxxxxx
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 merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree 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. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 Commission 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.
The present revision petition, therefore, is not maintainable and is dismissed.