SC: Execution proceedings are not a continuation of the original suit

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, today, i.e. on 6th May 2019in the matter of Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, pronounced that execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

In the absence of a statutory conferment, there is no inherent right to file a revision. (Para 6.1)

The jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 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 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 6.2)

Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision making process of the fora below. (Para 6.5)

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. (Para 7)

Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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)

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 the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consaumer dispute’.  (Para 7.3)

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.  (Para 7.7)

There is no remedy provided under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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. (Para 7.8)

Copy of judgement: Judgement_06-May-2019

-Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *