Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.     This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the State Commission in Execution Appeal no. A/ 29 of 2018. It is the second round of litigation in the execution matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the earlier round of limitation, the matter came up before this Commission and this Commission vide its order dated 28.01.2015 has dismissed the revision petition by making some observations/ directions, which reads as under:

“Since the entire principal amount of Rs.12,90,000/- payable in terms of the order of the District Forum is alleged to have been paid to the petitioner/complainant by 17-09-2012, no further interest is payable thereafter. This of course is subject to verification of the alleged payment.

It will be for the concerned District Forum to verify the payments claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party and workout the balance amount, if any, payable to the petitioner/complainant in terms of this order. If any excess amount is found to have been paid to the petitioner/complainant, the said amount shall be refunded by him to the respondent within two weeks of the District Forum making calculations in terms of this direction, but no interest on the said excess amount, if any, shall be payable.

          The revision petition stands disposed of”.

3.     Matter was again agitated by the OP before the District Forum and the District Forum vide its order dated 22.07.2014 decided the execution matter against which an execution appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission has dismissed the same for want of prosecution and in default as the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the State Commission on several dates.

4.     I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the material on record. The State Commission in its order has mentioned this EA as FA and the District Forum has mentioned it as CP, which the learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is a contempt petition. This only means that the execution case was filed under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and then the appeal lies before the State Commission under section 27 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, there is no provision for filing a revision petition against the order of the State Commission passed under section 27 A as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K.A. Nagamani, Civil Appeal No.4631 of 2019, decided on 06.05.2019. The order reads as under:15

        “7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors.,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 Petition16 u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.”

5.     On the basis of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present revision petition is not maintainable and therefore, the revision petition no. 2153 of 2019 is dismissed.