KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusK. A. NAGAMANI

218                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     7 S.C.R. 218
                              REPORTS                     [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A                KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
                                  v.
                         K. A. NAGAMANI
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019)
                            MAY 6, 2019
B
         [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
             Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s. 21(b) – Jurisdiction of the
      National Commission – Appeal arising out of execution proceedings
      – Order passed by the State Commission –Maintainability of Revision
      Petition before the National Commission u/s. 21(b) – Held: Revision
C     Petition before the National Commission was not maintainable
      against the order passed by the State Commission in an appeal
      arising out of execution proceedings – Execution petition cannot
      be termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’ – Orders
      passed for enforcement of the final order in the consumer dispute,
D     cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’
      – Revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission u/
      s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer
      dispute’ before the State Commission – Thus, the National
      Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the
      Revision Petition.
E
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 The National Commission cannot go beyond
      the limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule 16 of CPC bars
      revision in execution appeals. An execution petition cannot be
F     termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’. The definition
      of a ‘complaint’ and a ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) of
      the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 respectively, cannot be given
      a wide interpretation to encompass execution proceedings. An
      Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a “consumer
      dispute” pending before the State Commission. The “consumer
G     dispute” filed by the Respondent-Complainant was finally
      adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated
      19.09.2012. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only
      has the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance with
      Order XXI CPC. [Para 4.3-4.6] [227-D-F]
H
                                      218
    KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                             219


      1.2 The National Commission has original jurisdiction to            A
entertain complaints where the value of goods or services
exceeds rupees one crore; jurisdiction to entertain appeals
against Orders of any State Commission; and supervisory
jurisdiction over any State Commission in any “consumer
dispute” pending or decided by a State Commission, which is
                                                                          B
challenged on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) by the National
Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been
filed before the State Commission. The jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) of
the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only
in case of a “consumer dispute” filed before the State                    C
Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) is concerned about the
correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State
Commission in a “consumer dispute”. [Para 6.1, 6.2] [228-F-H;
229-A-B]
                                                                          D
      Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United
      India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 161 -
      referred to.
      1.3 A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an
‘appeal’. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only
when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision   E
making process of the fora below. [Para 6.3, 6.5] [229-C; 230-F]
      P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and
      Ors.(2004) 11 SCC 672 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 188 ;
      Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao
      Maruthirao Janagaval (1975) 2 SCC 246 : [1975]                      F
      Suppl. SCR 67 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
      v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 - referred to.
      1.4 The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National
Commission u/s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed
of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission. The                    G
consumer dispute, in the instant case, had already been finally
adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated
19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from the
execution of the final order passed by this Court. [Para 7, 7.1]
[230-G-H; 231-A]
                                                                          H
220           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A           1.5 Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement
      of Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or
      National Commission. An Order passed for enforcement, would
      not be an order in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally
      decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively
      determined the rights and obligations of the parties. [Para 7.2]
B
      [231-B; E]
            1.6 The nature of execution proceedings is materially
      different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a
      consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent
      proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in
C     the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed
      in the ‘consumer dispute’. [Para 7.3] [231-F]
            1.7 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
D     independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits
      of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution
      proceedings. [Para 7.7] [232-E-F]
           Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma AIR
           1988 AP 226 ; Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. v.
E          Nandan Singh & Ors. AIR 1987 Pat 33 - approved.
           Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya &
           Ors. [1963] 2 SCR 499 ; Satguru Construction Co. Pvt.
           Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd.
           2007 (3) MhLJ 843 ; Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant
F          Gajanan Pathak & Ors. 2011 (6) MhLJ 799 ; M/s.
           Parshava Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose AIR 1979 Pat
           308 - referred to.
            1.8 There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a
      Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State
G     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. [Para 7.8] [232-F-G; 233-A]

H
    KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                          221


      1.9 The National Commission committed a jurisdictional           A
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. Furthermore, the
National Commission modified the decree passed by this Court
vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the
                                                                       B
Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of
Rs. 2,67,750/- (which included an amount of Rs. 3,937 which had
been initially deducted by the Board). The National Commission
has awarded Interest on the amount of Rs. 3,937/- twice, by first
including it in the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/-;
and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amount              C
of Rs. 3,937/-, which would amount to a double payment.
[Para 7.9, 8] [233-B-D]
      1.10 The judgment of the High Court is upheld, which rightly
set aside the order passed by the National Commission on the
ground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the       D
Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out
of execution proceedings. [Para 9] [233-D-E]
                      Case Law Reference
[1963] 2 SCR 499               referred to            Para 3.4
                                                                       E
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR188         referred to            Para 6.1
(2016) 14 SCC 161              referred to            Para 6.2
[1975] Suppl. SCR 67           referred to            Para 6.3
(2014) 9 SCC 78                referred to            Para 6.4
2007 (3) MhLJ 843              referred to            Para 7.4         F
2011 (6) MhLJ 799              referred to            Para 7.4
AIR 1979 Pat 308               referred to            Para 7.4
AIR 1988 AP 226                approved               Para 7.7
AIR 1987 Pat 33                approved               Para 7.7         G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4631
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1746 of 2018.
                                                                       H
222            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A            Shailesh Madiyal, Mrigank Prabhakar, Sudhanshu Prakash, Advs.
      for the Appellant.
            Respondent-in-person.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
             1 The present Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedings
      initiated by the Respondent – Complainant from an Order passed by the
      State Commission in a consumer dispute. The issue which has arisen for
      consideration is whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the
C     Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as “the 1986
      Act”) is maintainable before the National Commission Dispute Redressal
      Commission (herein after referred to as “National Commission”) against
      an Order passed by the State Commission in an execution proceeding.
            2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue has
D     been raised, is as follows:
            2.1. The Respondent – Complainant applied for allotment of a
                 HIG-B Flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme at
                 Kengeri, Bangalore. The Appellant – Karnataka Housing
                 Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) vide letter
                 dated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the First
E
                 Floor to the Respondent – Complainant. The Board issued
                 a Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informing
                 the Respondent – Complainant that the cost of the flat was
                 Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments as
                 specified.
F
                       It is an admitted position that the Respondent -
                  Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in four
                  instalments.
            2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby the
                 Respondent – Complainant was allotted another flat, in lieu
G                of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment hadbeen
                 made. The Respondent – Complainant was informed
                 that the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since the
                 Respondent – Complainant was not willing to pay the final
                 cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of the
H                amount deposited by her.
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                               223
           [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

 2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after               A
      deducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent –
      Complainant.
 2.4. The Respondent – Complainant made a representation to
      the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and
      also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited           B
      from the date of payment of each instalment, till the date of
      refund.
          The Board however refused to accept the demand of
      the Respondent – Complainant.
 2.5. The Respondent – Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint           C
      alleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) of
      the 1986 Act before the District Consumer Disputes
      Redressal Forum, Bangalore, and prayed for compensation.
           The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006 allowed
      the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @ 12%             D
      p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from the
      date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the date of
      realization. The Board was also directed to refund the
      amount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent – Complainant. It
      was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days from         E
      the date of the Order.
 2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
      District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the Respondent
      – Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of 2007 before
      the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal                   F
      Commission, Bangalore.
          The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007
      dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent – Complainant.
 2.7. The Respondent – Complainant filed Revision Petition No.
      1839 of 2007 before the National Commission.                      G
          The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011
      dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order
      passed by the District Forum.

                                                                        H
224      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     2.8. The Respondent – Complainant filed SLP (Civil)
           No. 35226 – 35227 of 2011 before this Court, which was
           allowed, and the Order passed by the National Commission
           was set aside. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated
           19.09.2012 directed the Appellant – Board to pay Interest
           @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750
B
           from the date of deposit till the date of realization; refund
           the amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by the
           Board; pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for deficiency
           in service, and Rs. 20,000 towards Costs of litigation to the
           Respondent – Complainant. The operative part of the Order
C          is set-out herein below for ready reference :
               “For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals
               and pass the following order:-
               (i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-
               complainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum
D              on Rs.2,67,750/- from date of its respective deposit
               till the date of realization with further direction to
               refund the amount of Rs. 3,937/- to her, as directed
               by the Consumer Forum.
               (ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-
E              complainant further sum of Rs.50,000/- as
               compensation for deficiency in service on their part.
               (iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the
               appellant-complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
               cost of the litigation incurred by her.”
F
           The ‘consumer dispute’ stood finally adjudicated by this Court
           vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 which
           conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the
           parties.
      2.9. The Respondent – Complainant filed Execution Application
G
           No. 2 of 2014 before the District Forum. The Respondent –
           Complainant claimed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,58,749
           towards execution of the Order dated 19.09.2012 passed
           by this Court. Both parties submitted their Memo of
           calculation before the District Forum. The District Forum
H          vide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                              225
           [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      calculation filed by the Respondent – Complainant was partly     A
      correct, and directed the Appellant – Board to make an
      additional payment of Rs. 1,07,057.
          The Board satisfied the Decree by payment of the sum
      of Rs. 1,07,057 vide Demand Draft dated 09.09.2014.
 2.10. On 22.09.2014, the Respondent – Complainant filed               B
       Execution Appeal No. 1238 of 2014 under Section 15 of the
       1986 Act, challenging the Order dated 16.08.2014 before
       the State Commission.
           The State Commission vide Order dated 01.03.2016
      allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent – Complainant,        C
      and set aside the Order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the
      District Forum in E.P. No. 2 of 2014. It was directed that
      the amount of Rs. 2,67,750 already paid by the Board, would
      be appropriated first towards the Interest component and
      then towards the principal amount. The State Commission          D
      remitted the matter to the District Forum for fresh
      computation in compliance with the Order.
 2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the
       Appellant – Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b)
       of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P.       E
       No. 1362 of 2016.
           The Respondent – Complainant filed I.A. No. 299 of
      2017 to challenge the maintainability of the Revision Petition
      filed by the Appellant – Board.
          The Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowed         F
      vide Order dated 10.02.2017. The stand taken by the
      Respondent – Complainant was rejected as being devoid of
      merit.
 2.12. The Respondent – Complainant thereafter preferred M.A.
       No. 281 of 2017 for referring I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to a         G
       larger bench; and filed M.A. No. 282 of 2017 for declaring
       the Order dated 10.02.2017 to be a nullity.
          The National Commission vide Order dated 02.02.2018
      rejected the applications filed by the Respondent –
      Complainant.                                                     H
226            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A           2.13. Being aggrieved by the Orders dated 10.02.2017 and
                  02.02.2018 passed by the National Commission, the
                  Respondent – Complainant filed W.P. (Civil) No. 1746 of
                  2018 before the Delhi High Court.
                       The Delhi High Court vide the Impugned Judgment
B                 dated 13.11.2018, set aside the Orders passed by the
                  National Commission, and held that the National Commission
                  had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition against
                  the Order passed in Execution Proceedings by the State
                  Commission. It was held that the nature of enforcement
                  proceedings is materially different from the proceedings for
C                 adjudication of the consumer dispute. The Order passed in
                  an Execution Petition was not amenable to a challenge before
                  the National Commission in exercise of its Revisional
                  Jurisdiction.
            2.14. Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the
D                 Delhi High Court, the Appellant filed the present Appeal.
      3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that:
            3.1. A Revision Petition is maintainable before the National
                 Commission under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act. The
E                revisional jurisdiction exercised by the National Commission
                 is wide, and intended to encompass all proceedings before
                 the State Commissions.
            3.2. The intent of Section 21(b) is clearly to provide revisional
                 jurisdiction to the National Commission, over the State
F                Commission. The reference under Section 21(b) is
                 specifically to orders passed in any consumer dispute which
                 is pending before, or has been decided by any State
                 Commission.
            3.3. The phrase “consumer dispute” under Section 21(b) of the
                 1986 Act must be understood to mean any dispute which
G
                 arises under the 1986 Act.
            3.4. Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original
                 proceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint.


H
        KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                               227
                   [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

                 Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of          A
           this Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda
           Ramakrishnayya & Ors. 1
       4. On the other hand, the Respondent who appeared in person,
inter alia contended that :
         4.1. A Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b)       B
              of the 1986 Act, against an order of the State Commission
              passed in execution proceedings.
         4.2. The impugned judgment does not merit interference.
         4.3. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides           C
              that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not
              in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time
              being in force. Therefore, the National Commission cannot
              go beyond the limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule
              16 of CPC bars revision in execution appeals.
                                                                                D
         4.4. An execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation of
              the ‘consumer dispute’. The definition of a ‘complaint’ and
              a ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) respectively, cannot
              be given a wide interpretation to encompass execution
              proceedings.
                                                                                E
         4.5. An Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a
              “consumer dispute” pending before the State Commission.
              The “consumer dispute” filed by the Respondent –
              Complainant was finally adjudicated by this Court vide
              Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012.
                                                                                F
         4.6. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only has
              the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance with
              Order XXI CPC.
       5. We have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings and
written submissions filed.
                                                                                G
       6. The issue which arises for our consideration in the present
Appeal is whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before the National
Commission u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act against an Order passed by the
State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings.
1
    (1963) 2 SCR 499.                                                           H
228                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A               6.1. The right to file a Revision Petition, like an appeal, is a right
                     conferred by statute. 2 In the absence of a statutory
                     conferment, there is no inherent right to file a revision.
                         Section 21 sets out the jurisdiction of the National
                      Commission which is reproduced hereunder:
B                          “21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. —
                           Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
                           National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
                           (a) to entertain—

C                            (i) complaints where the value of the goods or
                                 services and compensation, if any, claimed
                                 exceeds rupees one crore; and
                            (ii) appeals against the orders of any State
                                 Commission; and
D                     (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
E
                          so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its
                          jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
                                                                  (emphasis supplied)
                     The National Commission has :
F                    (i)   original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the
                           value of goods or services exceeds rupees one crore;
                     (ii) jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Orders of any
                          State Commission; and

G                    (iii) supervisory jurisdiction over any State Commission in
                     any “consumer dispute” pending or decided by a State
                     Commission, which is challenged on the ground of lack or
                     excess of jurisdiction.

      2
          P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672.
H
     KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                                        229
                [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

       6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by the                 A
            National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which
            has been filed before the State Commission3. The jurisdiction
            u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National
            Commission only in case of a “consumer dispute” filed before
            the State Commission. The National Commission in exercise
                                                                                      B
            of its supervisory jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) is concerned about
            the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the
            State Commission in a “consumer dispute”.
       6.3. A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an ‘appeal’.
                  In Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao                      C
             Maruthirao Janagaval,4 this Court discussed the distinction
             between “appellate jurisdiction” and “revisional jurisdiction”
             as follows:
                  “2. ‘Appeal’ and ‘revision’ are expressions of common
                  usage in Indian statute and the distinction between                 D
                  ‘appellate jurisdiction’ and ‘revisional jurisdiction’
                  is well known though not well defined. Ordinarily,
                  appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as it
                  were, on law as well as fact and is invoked by an
                  aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction may, however,
                  be limited in some way as, for instance has been done               E
                  in the case of second appeal under the Code of Civil
                  Procedure, and under some Rent Acts in some States.
                  Ordinarily, again, revisional jurisdiction is
                  analogous to a power of superintendence and may
                  sometimes be exercised even without its being                       F
                  invoked by a party. The extent of revisional
                  jurisdiction is defined by the statute conferring such
                  jurisdiction. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction
                  is generally for the purpose of keeping tribunals
                  subordinate to the revising Tribunal within the
                  bounds of their authority to make them act according                G
                  to law, according to the procedure established by

3
  Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2016) 14 SCC 161.
4
  (1975) 2 SCC 246.                                                                   H
230               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A                           law and according to well defined principles of
                            justice.”
                                                                (emphasis supplied)
               6.4. Reference must also be made to the judgment of this Court
                    in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
B                   Singh,5 wherein it was held that :
                            “…Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of
                            appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice-versa. Both,
                            appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
                            creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has
C                           an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is
                            continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the
                            case may be. The power of the appellate court is co-
                            extensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily,
                            appellate jurisdiction involves re-hearing on facts
D                           and law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the
                            statute itself that provides for appellate jurisdiction.
                            On the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though,
                            is a part of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it
                            cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged appeal.
                            In other words, revision is not continuation of suit
E                           or of original proceeding. When the aid of revisional
                            court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere
                            within the permissible parameters provided in the
                            statute.”
                                                                (emphasis supplied)
F
               6.5. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only
                    whenillegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the
                    decision making process of the fora below.
             7. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission
      u/S. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer dispute’
G
      before the State Commission.
               7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present case, had already been
                    finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order

      5
H         (2014) 9 SCC 78
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                             231
           [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated       A
      from the execution of the final order passed by this Court.
 7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of
      Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or
      National Commission.
       Section 25(3) states :                                         B

       25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the
       State Commission or the National Commission.
       (3) Where any amount is due from any person under an
       order made by a District Forum, State Commission or            C
       the National Commission, as the case may be, the person
       entitled to the amount may make an application to the
       District Forum, the State Commission or the National
       Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum
       or the State Commission or the National Commission
       may issue a certificate for the said amount to the             D
       Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and
       the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in
       the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
           An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order
      in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally decided by    E
      the appellate forum, which has conclusively determined the
      rights and obligations of the parties.
 7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different
      from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer
      complaint. Execution proceedings are independent                F
      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. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel for the
      Appellant raised a contention that execution proceedings are    G
      a continuation of the ‘appeal’, and must therefore be
      considered to be a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’.
          Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of
      the Bombay High Court in Satguru Construction Co. Pvt.
                                                                      H
232             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A                  Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd.,6
                   and Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant Gajanan Pathak
                   & Ors.,7 as well as the Patna High Court in M/s. Parshava
                   Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose,8 wherein it was held that
                   execution proceedings are a continuation of the Suit.
B            7.5. On the other hand, the Respondent – Complainant has placed
                  reliance on a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
                  in Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma,9
                  wherein it was held that :
                    “Execution Proceedings, in our view, cannot be regarded
C                   as continuation of the suit in the sense in which the
                    proceedings in appeal are treated.”
                                                        (emphasis supplied)
             7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada
                  Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors.,10 has similarly held
D                 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,
E                 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
F                 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.
G
      6
         2007 (3) MhLJ 843
      7
         2011 (6) MhLJ 799
      8
        AIR 1979 Pat 308
      9
        AIR 1988 AP 226
      10
         AIR 1987 Pat 33.
H
      KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI                                  233
                 [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

                  Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision        A
             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 u/S.
             21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal filed        B
             before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.
       8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision
Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, the National
Commission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated
19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the Board to pay Interest @           C
18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/- (which included an
amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board).
The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of
Rs. 3,937/- twice, by first including it in the principal amount of Rs.
2,67,750/-; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amount
of Rs. 3,937/-, which would amount to a double payment.                          D

      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.                                     E

        The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.


Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal disposed of.

                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H