1.       The present Appeal Execution has been filed by the Judgment Debtors, who were the Petitioners before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission), against the Order dated 11-10-2018 passed by the State Commission in Revision Petition No.61 of 2018, arising out of Order dated 03-07-2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in Execution Application No.15/153, wherein the District Forum had directed the Judgment Debtors to be produced in person so that notice of accusation may be served.

2.       The case of the Complainants-Decree Holders, in narrow compass, is that they had booked a Flat No.B-28/204, Control No.24291800038 in Sahara City Homes Lucknow on 31-06-2006 believing that there was a rebate for life time towards car parking charges and one time maintenance. However, at the time of possession, the Opposite Parties - Judgment Debtors demanded parking charges amounting to ₹1,50,000/- and one time maintenance amounting to ₹2,91,537/- alleging that the rebate was applicable on the flats booked up to 03-05-2006 whereas the Complainants have booked the flat on 31-07-2006. The Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum which was partly accepted while allowing concession to the tune of ₹60,000/- only towards maintenance as mentioned in the brochure at Serial No.3 and also directed the Judgment Debtors to pay compensation of ₹5,000/- to the Decree Holders as well as penalty for delay in delivery of possession as per commitment, if any. The District Forum in its Order has observed as under:

          “Sequel to the above discussion, it is revealed that Complainant applied for the flat on 31.07.06 relying upon the saving/concession, as per brochure on which no cutoff date is mentioned. Nor it was mentioned in the allotment letter, which the OPs alleged to be 03.05.06. It is clear that on the brochure there is not such cutoff date and at serial no.3 under the ‘Building Rakh Rakhav’ the concession of Rs.60,000/- was available as maintenance charges, while the OPs have demanded Rs.91,537/- and there is no mention of charges in the concession of parking charges. From the citation on which the complainant has relied, it is transpired that the parking in the stilt space cannot be sold to any person in the present case, the flat holders were forced to park their car outside the building premises. But there is no such mention in the ruling that parking cannot be charged by the developers/promoters. Thus, the complaint is partly allowed and the concession to the tune of Rs.60,000/- only as maintenance in the brochure at serial no.3 in the heading ‘Building Rakh Rakhav’ is allowed to the complainant and this Forum further directs the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days, when copy of the order is supplied to the parties and to pay penalty for the delay delivery of the possession as per commitment, if any. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.”

3.       The Order of the District Forum whereby the Complaint had been partly allowed had become final. 

4.       An Execution Application, EA/15/153, was filed before the District Forum in which, vide Order dated 12-06-2017, warrants for attachment of property of the Judgment Debtors were ordered to be issued for recovery of balance amount of ₹8,47,000/- towards penalty for the delayed delivery of possession. Feeling aggrieved, the Judgment Debtors-Opposite Parties filed Revision Petition No.52 of 2017 before the State Commission. In the said Revision Petition, the State Commission set aside the Order dated 12-06-2017 of the District Forum to the extent of attachment of property under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and upheld the remaining part of the Order while holding as under:

          “Admittedly, the present Revision Petition arises from the proceedings initiated before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are criminal in nature and the JD’s status is like an accused. His presence before Fora is necessary as a notice of accusation is required to be issued under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. If the JD-accused does not appear then his/her property is attached for procuring in his/her presence and when he appears the said property is to be released. Since the JD are appearing so question of attachment of their property does not arise. In view of the above, Order of District Forum to the extent of attachment of property under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act is only set aside and remaining part of the Order is upheld. It has been brought to our notice that complainant has also filed execution application under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. District Forum can attach property in those proceedings in accordance with law.”  

5.       Pursuant to the above Order passed by the State Commission, the District Forum passed Order dated 03-07-2018 in EA/15/153 in the aforesaid manner.

6.       The Judgment Debtors filed Revision Petition No.61 of 2018 before the State Commission against Order dated 03-07-2018 of the District Forum passed in EA/15/153. The same was dismissed by the State Commission vide Order dated 11-10-2018. Against the Order dated 11-10-2018 passed by the State Commission, the Judgment Debtors filed Revision Petition No.3401 of 2018 before this Commission. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by this Commission while giving liberty to the Judgment Debtors to avail such other remedy as may be available to them, in law. While dismissing the Revision Petition, this Commission had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K. A. Nagamani, (2019) 6 SCC 424 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder:

          “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 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     In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition under Section 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 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.”     

7.       Now, the Judgment Debtors have filed this Appeal Execution praying quashing of the Order dated 11-10-2018 passed by the State Commission in Revision Petition No.61 of 2018 and Order dated 03-07-2018 passed by the District Forum in EA/15/153.

8.       We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and have perused the material placed on record.  

9.       On a query being made as to how this Appeal Execution is maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in a Revision Petition preferred against an Order passed by the District Forum in Execution Proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant vehemently argued that u/s 27A(1)(b) of the Act, an Appeal has been provided before the National Commission against the Order passed by the State Commission. According to him, Order passed by the State Commission in Revision Petition is an Order passed u/s 27 of the Act and, therefore, this Appeal is maintainable. The submission is wholly misconceived. A larger Bench of this Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Perfect Prints I(2015) CPJ 536 (NC) has held that no second Appeal lies in relation to an Order passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act. Relevant paragraph of the Order passed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is reproduced below:

          “6.      Section 27A of the Act inter alia provides for an Appeal to this Commission against ‘an Order’ passed by the State Commission under Section 27 of the Act. Such an Appeal is not restricted to a final order. Therefore, any original order, whether it be a final order, intermediate order or interlocutory order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act, can be challenged by a person aggrieved from such an order, by way of an Appeal before this Commission.

                   Since an Appeal against such an order has been statutorily provided, no revision petition, challenging an original order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act is maintainable.

          7.       If an order passed by a District Forum under Section 27 of the Act is challenged by way of an Appeal to the State Commission, the order passed by the State Commission in such an Appeal, whether it is a final order, or an intermediate order or an interlocutory order cannot be subjected to yet another Appeal, as no second Appeal is provided under the Act. However, being a non-appealable order passed by the State Commission, such an order can be challenged before this Commission by way of a revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Act.”

          However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Housing Board (supra), a revision petition is not maintainable before the National Commission in view of the order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal arising out of the execution proceedings. So far as the plea that an Appeal is maintainable before this Commission against the Order passed by the State Commission in revision petition filed against the Order passed by the District Forum in execution proceedings is concerned, we may mention here that under Section 27A of the Act, a second Appeal is not permitted.

          For ready reference the provision of Section 27A of the Act is reproduced below:

          “27A. Appeal against Order passed under Section 27 – (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under Section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from –

1. the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission;

2. the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and

3. the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.

(2)     Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.

(3)     Every appeal under this Section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission;

          Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if , it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.”

(underlined by us)

10.     From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, we are of the considered view that the impugned Order passed by the State Commission even though has been passed in a Revision Petition filed by the Appellant but factually it is an Order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal preferred u/s 27A of the Act as no Revision Petition lies before the State Commission against an order passed by the District Forum in Execution Petition, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board (supra). The Appeal against the Order made by the State Commission to the National Commission as provided u/s 27A(1)(b) of the Act, is only maintainable where the Order has been passed by the State Commission u/s 27 of the Act i.e. the Execution Proceedings and not in an Appeal (or wrongly mentioned as Revision) filed against the Order passed by the District Forum in Execution Proceedings. Admittedly, in the present case, the Appellant has challenged the Order dated 03-07-2018 passed by the District Forum in Execution Proceedings filed before District Forum u/s 27 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned Order dated 11-10-2018 passed by the State Commission cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, said to have been passed u/s 27 of the Act and, therefore, the present Appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed as not maintainable.