whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the 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. = 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 @ 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.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4631 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6276 of 2019)
Karnataka Housing Board …Appellant
versus
K. A. Nagamani …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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 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
    1
    Commission”) against an Order passed by the State
    Commission in an execution proceeding.
  2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue
    has been raised, is as follows:
    2.1. The Respondent – Complainant applied for allotment of a
    HIG­B Flat under the Self­Financing 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
    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.
    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 of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment
    had been 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
    2
    final cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of
    the amount deposited by her.
    2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after
    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
    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 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% 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.
    3
    It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days
    from 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 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.
    The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011
    dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order
    passed by the District Forum.
    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
    from the date of deposit till the date of realization; refund
    the amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by the
    4
    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 is set­out 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 appellantcomplainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum
    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 appellantcomplainant further sum of Rs.50,000/­ as
    compensation for deficiency in service on their part.
    (iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the
    appellant­complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/­
    towards cost of the litigation incurred by her.”
    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
    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
    5
    Forum vide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of
    calculation filed by the Respondent – Complainant was
    partly 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
    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,
    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 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)
    6
    of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P.
    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
    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
    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.
    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
    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
    7
    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 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
    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
    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
    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.
    8
    3.3. The phrase “consumer dispute” under Section 21(b) of the
    1986 Act must be understood to mean any dispute which
    arises under the 1986 Act.
    3.4. Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original
    proceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint.
    Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of
    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)
    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
    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.
    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,
    1 (1963) 2 SCR 499.
    9
    cannot be given a wide interpretation to encompass
    execution proceedings.
    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.
    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.
  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.
    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:
    “21. Jurisdiction of the National
    Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of
    2 P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672.
    10
    this Act, the National Commission shall have
    jurisdiction—
    (a) to entertain—
    (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
    (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate
    orders in any consumer 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 so vested, or
    has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
    illegally or with material irregularity.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    The National Commission has :
    (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
    (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.
    6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by the
    National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute
    11
    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 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
    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 ‘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 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 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
    3 Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
    (2016) 14 SCC 161.
    4 (1975) 2 SCC 246.
    12
    of keeping tribunals subordinate to the revising
    Tribunal within the bounds of their authority to
    make them act according to law, according to the
    procedure established by 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 Singh,
    5
    wherein it was held that :
    “…Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of
    appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice­versa. Both,
    appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
    creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has
    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 coextensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily,
    appellate jurisdiction involves re­hearing on facts
    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 full­fledged appeal.
    In other words, revision is not continuation of suit 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)
    6.5. 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.
  7. 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.
    5 (2014) 9 SCC 78
    13
    7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present 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.
    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 :
  8. 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 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 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 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
    14
    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 ‘consumer dispute’.
    7.4. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel for the
    Appellant raised a contention that execution proceedings
    are 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.
    Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Co­operative 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.
    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 as continuation of the suit in the sense in
    which the proceedings in appeal are treated.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    6 2007 (3) MhLJ 843.
    7 2011 (6) MhLJ 799.
    8 AIR 1979 Pat 308.
    9 AIR 1988 AP 226.
    15
    7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat
    Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors.,
    10 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 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.
    7.8. 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
    10 AIR 1987 Pat 33.
    16
    u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal
    filed before the State Commission, in Execution
    proceedings.
  9. 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 @ 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.
  10. 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.
    17
    The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
    ………………………….J.
    (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
    …………………………J.
    (INDU MALHOTRA)
    New Delhi,
    May 6, 2019
    18