ORDER (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed against an order in appeal No.1019 of 2017 of the petitioner challenging the order of the District Forum in Execution Application No. EA of 106 of 2015.  It has been held by 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 on 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

8.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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 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 is dismissed.