JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2013 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (for short “the State Commission”). Vide this impugned order, the State Commission had disposed of two Appeals bearing No.FA/12/607 and FA/12/628 of both the parties against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed in Execution Case No.139 of 2011 by the District Forum, Raipur. It, therefore, is clear that the present Revision Petition has been filed against an order in Appeal, whereby order passed in Execution Case was -2- challenged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Karnataka Housing Board vs. K. A. Nagamani, AIR 2019 SC 2290” has clearly held that no Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable against the order of the State Commission in execution proceedings. The Apex Court has held as under: “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. 7.9 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.” In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. | 
