None appears for the Petitioner. 2. The record shows that the Petitioner has not taken any steps consecutively for 4th date today after 03.08.2023, 29.11.2023 and 08.02.2024 earlier. 3. In our detailed Order passed on 25.05.2023 we had asked Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner to send up Written Arguments with case law to explain how the present Revision Petition is maintainable. 4. Thereafter the Petitioner’s Counsel has sent up her fresh Written Arguments along with copies of certain decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr., AIR 2004 SC 904” Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2628” and of this Commission in “R Narasimha Reddy Vs. Kuchakula Surender Reddy & Ors.” 5. None of the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however pertain to any proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. Both the aforesaid Civil Appeals decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were from decrees passed in Original Civil proceedings, and not from any Consumer disputes. 6. The decision of this Commission in “R Narasimha Reddy Vs. Kuchakula Surender Reddy & Ors. (supra) was pronounced on 05.03.2012, which was long before the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K.A. Nagamani (2019) 6 SCC 424”, in which it had been specifically observed that there is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in Appeal by the State Commission arising out of Execution Proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. 7. The impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission, Maharashtra was also passed in the Appeal No.A/12/242 arising out of Execution Proceedings, on account of which the present Revision Petition is clearly not maintainable. The same is therefore, dismissed. No further Orders as to costs. | 
