The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.319/2015 against IA No.439/2014 in PP/49/2009 in CC/315/2007 of District Forum Guntur, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. M. N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Srinivasa Srarup, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and have perused the impugned order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the -2 State Commission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that IA was filed before the District Forum seeking direction of the District Forum to deposit the amount of development charges and it was not filed in execution proceedings. The submission is wholly misconceived. We may mention here that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 once the District Forum had passed an order in the Consumer Complaint and finally decided it, it can only exercise jurisdiction if the State Commission or the National Commission in an Appeal or Revision Petition preferred by either of the parties has either modified the order or had remanded the matter giving certain directions. It is not the case that either the State Commission or the National Commission had given any direction to the District Forum to pass any order in the matter already decided in the Consumer Complaint. From the order dated 30th May, 2015 passed by the District Forum, Guntur in IA/439/2014 preferred by the Petitioner in PP/49/2009 in CC/315/2007, we find that the IA was filed in PP/49/2009 to receive the demand draft for an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards development charges. Thus, in the Consumer Complaint already decided whatever proceedings were initiated in the execution proceedings, it is mentioned as PP (Penalty Proceedings) and not EP (Execution Proceedings). The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the State Commission was against the order dated 30th May, 2015 passed by the District Forum purported to be under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which gives power to pass appropriate orders against which the aggrieved party can file Appeal before the next higher Forum in proceedings arising out of execution. Present Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the State Commission in Appeal arising out of execution proceedings. -3- It may be mentioned here that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy decided on 03.09.1998 and Ramankutty Guptan vs. Avarna AIR 1994 SC 1699 and submitted that in procedural matters, technicalities should not come in the way. We cannot accept the submission made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner for the simple reason that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board (supra) vs. K.A. Nagamani in Civil Appeal No.463/2019 decided on 6.5.2019 has clearly laid down that a Revision Petition does not lie before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal arising out of execution proceedings. It may be mentioned here that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board (supra), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any Revision under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against orders arising out of Appeal preferred in execution proceedings. The Revision Petition, therefore, not maintainable and is dismissed leaving it open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy which is available under law. | 
