1.      This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal No. 99/2014, which arose from the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kota in Execution Case No. 04/2005.

2.      Factual Matrix of the case is that Ms Premlata Sharma had filed Consumer Complaint No. 297/2000 before the District Forum, and it was decided in her favour on 07.02.2004. Rajasthan Housing Board, the Opposite Party (OP) challenged the judgment by filing Appeal No. 517/2004, which resulted in reduced interest rate as well as compensation payable to the complainant, by the learned State Commission vide order dated 13.10.2004. The complainant filed Appeal No. 1706/2005, and the State Commission remanded the case for fresh consideration on 19.01.2010. Rajasthan Housing Board then filed Revision Petition No. 2086 of 2010, which was dismissed on 23.07.2010. As against pursuing the remanded complaint, the complainant filed Execution Application No. 04/2005 for compliance with the orders dated 19.01.2010, 13.10.2004, and 07.02.2004. The learned District Forum decided the said Execution Application vide order dated 17.10.2014. The complainant was dissatisfied with this decision of the learned District Forum and filed Appeal No. 99/2014 against the disposal of the Execution Application. This Appeal of Execution was decided by the learned State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2017 directing the Rajasthan Housing Board to comply with the original District Forum order dated 07.02.2004 passed in favour of the complainant.

3.      On being issued notice in the present Revision Petition against the order dated 30.10.2017 disposing of the Appeal in Execution, the complainant failed to appear, despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the complainant was placed ex-parte on 20.05.2024.

4.      I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Rajasthan Housing Board and perused all the material available on record.

5.      The core issue to be determined is whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against an Order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal against Execution Proceedings?

6.      In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K.A. Nagamani, AIR 2019 SC 2290 has held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, now been replaced by Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which arises out of the Execution Proceedings, where the Consumer Complaint is not pending. In the present case, the original complaint was already disposed of and the Appeal on Execution proceedings are also disposed of. Therefore, the present Revision Petition is not maintainable and cannot be entertained. 

7.      Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the Petitioner to seek the appropriate remedy in accordance with the Law.