KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD versus K. A. NAGAMANI on 6 May 2019

[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 theNational Commission – Appeal arising out of execution proceedings– Order passed by the State Commission –Maintainability of RevisionPetition before the National Commission u/s. 21(b) – Held: RevisionCPetition before the National Commission was not maintainableagainst the order passed by the State Commission in an appealarising out of execution proceedings – Execution petition cannotbe termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’ – Orderspassed for enforcement of the final order in the consumer dispute,Dcannot 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 ‘consumerdispute’ before the State Commission – Thus, the NationalCommission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining theRevision Petition.

E

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The National Commission cannot go beyondthe limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule 16 of CPC barsrevision in execution appeals. An execution petition cannot beFtermed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’. The definitionof a ‘complaint’ and a ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) ofthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 respectively, cannot be givena wide interpretation to encompass execution proceedings. AnOrder in execution proceedings is not an Order in a “consumerdispute” pending before the State Commission. The “consumerGdispute” filed by the Respondent-Complainant was finallyadjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated19.09.2012. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum onlyhas the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance withOrder XXI CPC. [Para 4.3-4.6] [227-D-F]

H

1.2 The National Commission has original jurisdiction toentertain complaints where the value of goods or servicesexceeds rupees one crore; jurisdiction to entertain appealsagainst Orders of any State Commission; and supervisoryjurisdiction over any State Commission in any “consumerdispute” pending or decided by a State Commission, which ischallenged on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction. Theexercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) by the NationalCommission is limited to a consumer dispute which has beenfiled before the State Commission. The jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) ofthe 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission onlyin case of a “consumer dispute” filed before the StateCommission. The National Commission in exercise of itssupervisory jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) is concerned about thecorrectness or otherwise of the orders passed by the StateCommission in a “consumer dispute”. [Para 6.1, 6.2] [228-F-H;229-A-B]

Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. UnitedIndia 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 onlywhen illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decisionmaking process of the fora below. [Para 6.3, 6.5] [229-C; 230-F]

P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. andOrs.(2004) 11 SCC 672 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 188 ;Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. VithalraoMaruthirao Janagaval (1975) 2 SCC 246 : [1975]Suppl. SCR 67 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 - referred to.

1.4 The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the NationalCommission u/s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposedof ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission. Theconsumer dispute, in the instant case, had already been finallyadjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from theexecution of the final order passed by this Court. [Para 7, 7.1][230-G-H; 231-A]

ABC

D

EF

G

H

A1.5 Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcementof Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission orNational Commission. An Order passed for enforcement, wouldnot be an order in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finallydecided by the appellate forum, which has conclusivelydetermined the rights and obligations of the parties. [Para 7.2]B[231-B; E]

1.6 The nature of execution proceedings is materiallydifferent from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of aconsumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independentproceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order inCthe 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 areproceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuationof the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate andDindependent proceedings for execution of the decree. The meritsof the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during executionproceedings. [Para 7.7] [232-E-F]

Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma AIR1988 AP 226 ; Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. v.ENandan 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. JayantFGajanan Pathak & Ors. 2011 (6) MhLJ 799 ; M/s.Parshava Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose AIR 1979 Pat308 - referred to.

1.8 There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file aRevision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the StateGCommission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does notprovide for filing of a Revision Petition before the NationalCommission against an Order passed by the State Commissionin execution proceedings. [Para 7.8] [232-F-G; 233-A]

1.9 The National Commission committed a jurisdictionalerror by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) filed by theAppellant-Board against an appeal filed before the StateCommission, in Execution proceedings. Furthermore, theNational Commission modified the decree passed by this Courtvide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed theBoard to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount ofRs. 2,67,750/- (which included an amount of Rs. 3,937 which hadbeen initially deducted by the Board). The National Commissionhas awarded Interest on the amount of Rs. 3,937/- twice, by firstincluding it in the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/-;and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amountof 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 rightlyset aside the order passed by the National Commission on theground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against theOrder passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising outof execution proceedings. [Para 9] [233-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4631of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1746 of 2018.

AB

C

D

E

FG

H

AShailesh Madiyal, Mrigank Prabhakar, Sudhanshu Prakash, Advs.for the Appellant.

Respondent-in-person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BINDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.

1 The present Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedingsinitiated by the Respondent – Complainant from an Order passed by theState Commission in a consumer dispute. The issue which has arisen forconsideration is whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of theCConsumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as “the 1986Act”) is maintainable before the National Commission Dispute RedressalCommission (herein after referred to as “National Commission”) againstan Order passed by the State Commission in an execution proceeding.

2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue hasbeen raised, is as follows:D

2.1. The Respondent – Complainant applied for allotment of aHIG-B Flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme atKengeri, Bangalore. The Appellant – Karnataka HousingBoard (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) vide letterdated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the FirstEFloor to the Respondent – Complainant. The Board issueda Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informingthe Respondent – Complainant that the cost of the flat wasRs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments asspecified.

F

It is an admitted position that the Respondent -Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in fourinstalments.

2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby theRespondent – Complainant was allotted another flat, in lieuGof the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment hadbeenmade. The Respondent – Complainant was informedthat the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since theRespondent – Complainant was not willing to pay the finalcost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of theHamount deposited by her.

2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 afterdeducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent –Complainant.

2.4. The Respondent – Complainant made a representation tothe Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, andalso Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount depositedfrom the date of payment of each instalment, till the date ofrefund.

The Board however refused to accept the demand ofthe Respondent – Complainant.

2.5. The Respondent – Complainant filed a Consumer Complaintalleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) ofthe 1986 Act before the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum, Bangalore, and prayed for compensation.

The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006 allowedthe Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @ 12%p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from thedate of deposit of the respective instalments, till the date ofrealization. The Board was also directed to refund theamount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent – Complainant. Itwas directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days fromthe date of the Order.

2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by theDistrict Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the Respondent– Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of 2007 beforethe Karnataka State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Bangalore.

The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent – Complainant.

2.7. The Respondent – Complainant filed Revision Petition No.1839 of 2007 before the National Commission.

The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Orderpassed by the District Forum.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A2.8.The Respondent – Complainant filed SLP (Civil)No. 35226 – 35227 of 2011 before this Court, which wasallowed, and the Order passed by the National Commissionwas set aside. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated19.09.2012 directed the Appellant – Board to pay Interest@ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750Bfrom the date of deposit till the date of realization; refundthe amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by theBoard; pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for deficiencyin service, and Rs. 20,000 towards Costs of litigation to theRespondent – Complainant. The operative part of the OrderCis set-out herein below for ready reference :

“For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appealsand pass the following order:-

(i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-complainant interest at the rate of 18% per annumDon Rs.2,67,750/- from date of its respective deposittill the date of realization with further direction torefund the amount of Rs. 3,937/- to her, as directedby the Consumer Forum.

(ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-complainant further sum of Rs.50,000/- ascompensation for deficiency in service on their part.

E

(iii) The respondent is also directed to pay theappellant-complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towardscost of the litigation incurred by her.”

F

The ‘consumer dispute’ stood finally adjudicated by this Courtvide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 whichconclusively determined the rights and obligations of theparties.

2.9. The Respondent – Complainant filed Execution ApplicationGNo. 2 of 2014 before the District Forum. The Respondent –Complainant claimed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,58,749towards execution of the Order dated 19.09.2012 passedby this Court. Both parties submitted their Memo ofcalculation before the District Forum. The District ForumHvide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of calculation filed by the Respondent – Complainant was partlycorrect, and directed the Appellant – Board to make anadditional payment of Rs. 1,07,057.

The Board satisfied the Decree by payment of the sumof Rs. 1,07,057 vide Demand Draft dated 09.09.2014.

2.10. On 22.09.2014, the Respondent – Complainant filedExecution Appeal No. 1238 of 2014 under Section 15 of the1986 Act, challenging the Order dated 16.08.2014 beforethe State Commission.

The State Commission vide Order dated 01.03.2016allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent – Complainant,and set aside the Order dated 16.08.2014 passed by theDistrict Forum in E.P. No. 2 of 2014. It was directed thatthe amount of Rs. 2,67,750 already paid by the Board, wouldbe appropriated first towards the Interest component andthen towards the principal amount. The State Commissionremitted the matter to the District Forum for freshcomputation in compliance with the Order.

2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, theAppellant – Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b)of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P.No. 1362 of 2016.

The Respondent – Complainant filed I.A. No. 299 of2017 to challenge the maintainability of the Revision Petitionfiled by the Appellant – Board.

The Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowedvide Order dated 10.02.2017. The stand taken by theRespondent – Complainant was rejected as being devoid ofmerit.

2.12. The Respondent – Complainant thereafter preferred M.A.No. 281 of 2017 for referring I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to alarger bench; and filed M.A. No. 282 of 2017 for declaringthe Order dated 10.02.2017 to be a nullity.

The National Commission vide Order dated 02.02.2018rejected the applications filed by the Respondent –Complainant.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.13. Being aggrieved by the Orders dated 10.02.2017 and02.02.2018 passed by the National Commission, theRespondent – Complainant filed W.P. (Civil) No. 1746 of2018 before the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court vide the Impugned JudgmentBdated 13.11.2018, set aside the Orders passed by theNational Commission, and held that the National Commissionhad no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition againstthe Order passed in Execution Proceedings by the StateCommission. It was held that the nature of enforcementproceedings is materially different from the proceedings forCadjudication of the consumer dispute. The Order passed inan Execution Petition was not amenable to a challenge beforethe National Commission in exercise of its RevisionalJurisdiction.

2.14. Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2018 passed by theDDelhi 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 NationalCommission under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act. TheErevisional jurisdiction exercised by the National Commissionis wide, and intended to encompass all proceedings beforethe State Commissions.

3.2. The intent of Section 21(b) is clearly to provide revisionaljurisdiction to the National Commission, over the StateCommission. The reference under Section 21(b) isFspecifically to orders passed in any consumer dispute whichis pending before, or has been decided by any StateCommission.

3.3. The phrase “consumer dispute” under Section 21(b) of the1986 Act must be understood to mean any dispute whichGarises under the 1986 Act.

3.4. Execution proceedings are a continuation of the originalproceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint.

H

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

Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment ofthis Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. KatragaddaRamakrishnayya & 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)of the 1986 Act, against an order of the State Commissionpassed in execution proceedings.

4.2. The impugned judgment does not merit interference.

4.3. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 providesthat the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and notin derogation of the provisions of any other law for the timebeing in force. Therefore, the National Commission cannotgo beyond the limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule16 of CPC bars revision in execution appeals.

4.4. An execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation ofthe ‘consumer dispute’. The definition of a ‘complaint’ anda ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) respectively, cannotbe given a wide interpretation to encompass executionproceedings.

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 videJudgment and Order dated 19.09.2012.

4.6. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only hasthe jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance withOrder XXI CPC.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings andwritten submissions filed.

6. The issue which arises for our consideration in the presentAppeal is whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before the NationalCommission u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act against an Order passed by theState Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A6.1.The right to file a Revision Petition, like an appeal, is a rightconferred by statute.[2] In the absence of a statutoryconferment, there is no inherent right to file a revision.

Section 21 sets out the jurisdiction of the NationalCommission which is reproduced hereunder:

B

“—21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, theNational Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) complaintswhere the value of the goods orservices and compensation, if any, claimedexceeds rupeesone crore; and C

(ii) appeals against the orders of any StateCommission; and D

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders-in any consumer dispute which is pending beforeor has been decided by any State Commission whereit appears to the National Commission that such StateCommission has exercised a jurisdiction not vestedin it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdictionso vested, or has acted in the exercise of itsjurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

E

The National Commission has :

F

(i) original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where thevalue of goods or services exceeds rupees one crore;

(ii) jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Orders of anyState Commission; and

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

G

H2 P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672.

6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by theNational Commission is limited to a consumer dispute whichhas been filed before the State Commission[3]. The jurisdictionu/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the NationalCommission only in case of a “consumer dispute” filed beforethe State Commission. The National Commission in exerciseof its supervisory jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) is concerned aboutthe correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by theState Commission in a “consumer dispute”.

6.3. A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an ‘appeal’.

In Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. VithalraoMaruthirao Janagaval,[4] this Court discussed the distinctionbetween “appellate jurisdiction” and “revisional jurisdiction”as follows:

“2. ‘Appeal’ and ‘revision’ are expressions of commonusage in Indian statute and the distinction between‘appellate jurisdiction’ and ‘revisional jurisdiction’is well known though not well defined. Ordinarily,appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as itwere, on law as well as fact and is invoked by anaggrieved person. Such jurisdiction may, however,be limited in some way as, for instance has been donein the case of second appeal under the Code of CivilProcedure, and under some Rent Acts in some States.Ordinarily, again, revisional jurisdiction isanalogous to a power of superintendence and maysometimes be exercised even without its beinginvoked by a party. The extent of revisionaljurisdiction is defined by the statute conferring suchjurisdiction. The conferment of revisional jurisdictionis generally for the purpose of keeping tribunalssubordinate to the revising Tribunal within thebounds of their authority to make them act accordingto 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.

A

B

C

F

G

H

[2019] 7 S.C.R.

A

law and according to well defined principles ofjustice.”

6.4. Reference must also be made to the judgment of this Courtin Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. DilbaharBSingh,[5] wherein it was held that :

“…Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part ofappellate jurisdiction but it is not vice-versa.Both,appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction arecreatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding hasCan inherent right of appeal or revision.An appeal iscontinuation of suit or original proceeding, as thecase may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily,appellate jurisdiction involves re-hearing on factsDand law but such jurisdiction may be limited by thestatute 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 fullfledged appeal.In other words, revision is not continuation of suitEor of original proceeding. When the aid of revisionalcourt is invoked on the revisional side, it can interferewithin the permissible parameters provided in thestatute.”

F

6.5. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised onlywhenillegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in thedecision making process of the fora below.

7. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commissionu/S. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer dispute’Gbefore the State Commission.

7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present case, had already beenfinally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order H5 (2014) 9 SCC 78

dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanatedfrom the execution of the final order passed by this Court.

7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement ofOrders passed by the District Forum, State Commission orNational Commission.

Section 25(3) states :

25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, theState Commission or the National Commission.

(3) Where any amount is due from any person under anorder made by a District Forum, State Commission orthe National Commission, as the case may be, the personentitled to the amount may make an application to theDistrict Forum, the State Commission or the NationalCommission, as the case may be, and such District Forumor the State Commission or the National Commissionmay issue a certificate for the said amount to theCollector of the district (by whatever name called) andthe Collector shall proceed to recover the amount inthe same manner as arrears of land revenue.

An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an orderin the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally decided bythe appellate forum, which has conclusively determined therights and obligations of the parties.

7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially differentfrom the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumercomplaint. Execution proceedings are independentproceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the finalorder in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to beorders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’.

7.4. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel for theAppellant raised a contention that execution proceedings area continuation of the ‘appeal’, and must therefore beconsidered to be a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’.

Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision ofthe Bombay High Court in Satguru Construction Co. Pvt.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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. ParshavaProperties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose,[8]wherein it was held thatexecution proceedings are a continuation of the Suit.

A

B7.5. On the other hand, the Respondent – Complainant has placedreliance on a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Courtin Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma,[9]wherein it was held that :

“Execution Proceedings, in our view, cannot be regardedas continuation of the suit in the sense in which theproceedings in appeal are treated.”

C

7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat NarmadaDevi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors.,[10]has similarly heldDthat execution proceedings cannot be regarded as acontinuation of the Suit.

7.7. We affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the AndhraPradesh High Court and Patna High Court. Executionproceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit,Ecannot be considered to be a continuation of the originalsuit. Execution proceedings are separate and independentproceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of theclaim or dispute, cannot be considered during executionproceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated bythe decree holder to enforce the decree passed in theFsubstantive dispute.

7.8. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file aRevision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by theState Commission in execution proceedings.

G

6 2007 (3) MhLJ 8437 2011 (6) MhLJ 7998 AIR 1979 Pat 3089 AIR 1988 AP 22610 AIR 1987 Pat 33.H

Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a RevisionPetition before the National Commission against an Orderpassed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.

7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed ajurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S.21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal filedbefore the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.

8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the RevisionPetition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, the NationalCommission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the Board to pay Interest @18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/- (which included anamount of Rs. 3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board).The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount ofRs. 3,937/- twice, by first including it in the principal amount of Rs.2,67,750/-; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amountof Rs. 3,937/-, which would amount to a double payment.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the judgment ofthe Delhi High Court, which has rightly set aside the Order passed bythe National Commission on the ground that a Revision Petition was notmaintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in anappeal arising out of execution proceedings.

The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal disposed of.

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H