Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that, for the period between 15 March 2003 and 20 July 2020, Section 25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be read to permit enforcement of any order of the consumer fora as a decree under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court directed that an appeal from a District Forum’s execution order lies only to the State Commission and that no further appeal or revision is maintainable therefrom; similarly, no appeal or revision lies from a State Commission’s order in execution. The civil appeals and pending applications before the Court were disposed of. The Bench also requested the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to take steps for expeditious disposal of pending execution petitions.

The appeals arose from execution proceedings traceable to directions issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune, in relation to a housing project named “Palm Groves.” The developer obtained development rights in 1995, secured approvals in 1997, and issued a brochure for the sale of flats. Purchasers entered individual agreements based on the brochure. A cooperative housing society comprising flat purchasers was formed on 19 May 2003 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the builder and the original landowners alleging deficiency and seeking, inter alia, conveyance in the society’s favour.

Also Read: Indian Telegraph Act | Supreme Court Strikes Down Uniform Compensation Award | Recommends Creation Of Statutory Appeal Against District Judge’s Orders Under S.16(3)

On 16 March 2007, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint. It directed execution of the conveyance deed in terms of the 28 June 1999 agreement; declared common amenities rights for unit-holders; directed handing over of documents relating to society formation and infrastructure; awarded compensation to the society; imposed contribution by certain opposite parties; fixed costs; and stipulated implementation within two months. The order’s operative text is reproduced in the judgment.

During the pendency of appellate proceedings, the society initiated Execution Petition No. 22 of 2007 under Section 25 of the 1986 Act seeking execution of the conveyance. On 5 September 2007, the District Forum appointed a commissioner to prepare a draft conveyance deed; the draft was submitted and objections were raised by the respondents. On 20 November 2007, the District Forum approved the draft conveyance, rejected the objections, noted that the earlier final order had taken care of the bungalow owners’ concerns regarding common facilities, and directed execution of the sale deed.

The builder and bungalow owners challenged the District Forum’s execution order by filing revision petitions before the State Commission under Section 17(1)(b). On 21 April 2014, the State Commission allowed all such revision petitions and set aside the execution order dated 20 November 2007. Separately, in appeals from the District Forum’s 16 March 2007 complaint order, the State Commission had, on 2 April 2014, set aside only the compensation of ₹5,00,000 while upholding the remaining directions.

Aggrieved, the appellant society approached the National Commission. On 5 May 2016, the National Commission set aside the State Commission’s 2 April 2014 order (in the appeals from the complaint order), recording failure to consider additional documents, and remanded the matter.

With respect to execution, the society filed Execution Revision Petition Nos. 52/2014, 53/2014 and 56/2014 before the National Commission challenging the State Commission’s order setting aside the District Forum’s execution order. On 16 July 2019, the National Commission dismissed those petitions as not maintainable, observing that although revisions had been filed before the State Commission against an execution order, the proper remedy was appeal under Section 27-A of the 1986 Act; merely labeling proceedings as “revision” would not oust appellate jurisdiction.

Before the Supreme Court, the central statutory issues concerned (i) whether, during the interregnum created by the 2002 Amendment substituting “every order” with “interim order” in Section 25(1), the consumer fora could enforce final orders as decrees under Order XXI CPC, and (ii) what remedies existed to challenge execution orders of the consumer fora. To address these interpretive questions—bearing system-wide consequences—the Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India and appointed a Senior Advocate as amicus curiae. By order dated 23 July 2024, Shri Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, was requested to assist; the Attorney General, Shri R. Venkatramani, also assisted.

The Attorney General and the amicus were in unison that, save for the 15 March 2003 to 20 July 2020 period created by the 2002 Amendment, the scheme under the 1986 Act (pre-amendment) and the 2019 Act permits enforcement of all orders; the interregnum anomaly could be addressed using interpretive tools without departing from the Act’s structure. They also pointed to data indicating pendency of execution petitions from 1992 onwards, underscoring the practical effect of the interpretive gap.

The judgment’s structure then traces the 1986 Act’s scheme, the 2002 amendments (including Sections 27 and 27-A dealing with criminal liability for non-compliance and the special appeal for orders under Section 27), the 2019 Act’s restoration of a comprehensive execution mechanism (Section 71), and a comparative analysis across three time-bands—pre-2002, 2003–2020, and post-2019—before formulating conclusions on statutory interpretation and on remedies in execution.

On remedies, the Court analyzed the text placing revisional powers within the ambit of “consumer dispute,” and explained why an execution petition falls outside that expression. It concluded that from a District Forum’s execution order, an appeal lies to the State Commission under Section 15; from a State Commission’s execution order, no appeal lies to the National Commission; and there is no appeal to the Supreme Court from an execution order of the National Commission. These positions were stated while leaving open examination by authorities of recourse to extraordinary jurisdiction for fact-intensive execution questions, as that point was not adjudicated in the case.

“The 1986 Act… is a self-contained code. It provides for the disputes which can be adjudicated upon under the Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction, procedure for filing of complaints, appeals and revisions, execution of the orders, limitation, filing of criminal complaints against the person not complying with orders of different Fora, conferment of the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class and even the appeal against the aforesaid conviction.”

“The provision of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908… may be applicable. Meaning thereby that specific provision with regard to enforcement/execution of the orders passed under the 2019 Act has been provided. The provision is similar to one existing in the 1986 Act before the 2002 Amendment Act.”

“Section 25 of the 1986 Act, having been substituted w.e.f. 15.03.2003… [Sub-section (1)] apparently on account of an error, used the term ‘interim order’… [Sub-section (3)] talked about ‘an order’ without there being any distinction between interim or final… As a result of the substitution of Section 25… there was no provision for execution of an order other than interim order except where it provided for any amount.”

“Using different tools available for interpretation of statutes, in Sub-section (1) of Section 25 the words where ‘an interim order’ should be read as where ‘any order’. Towards the end of sub-section (1)… following line shall be deemed to be added ‘enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI… shall, as far as may be, applicable and’.”

“The sub-section (1) of Section 25 shall now read as under: ‘(1) Where any order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI… shall, as far as may be, applicable and may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.’”

“As there was anomalous situation in the language of Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act for the period 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020, the provision as we have suggested above shall be considered as applicable in all the pending execution petitions or proceedings arising therefrom at any stage.”

“In case an order is passed by the State Commission in execution petition, there is no remedy of appeal to the National Commission… Similar is the position, where an order is passed by the National Commission in execution proceedings, the remedy of appeal to this Court is not available.”

“The term used… is with reference to order passed in any ‘consumer dispute’… Meaning thereby revisional jurisdiction vested with the State Commission is with reference to a complaint filed in a ‘consumer dispute’, which does not include an execution petition.”

“An appeal lies to the National Commission from an order of the State Commission only if the order is passed with reference to a complaint on the original side.”

“We request the Chairman, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to examine the issue and take appropriate steps for expeditious disposal of the execution petitions pending at different stages, in exercise of its powers under Section 70(1)(d) of the 2019 Act.”

“An order passed by any court, or any forum is merely a kind of paper decree unless effective relief is granted to the party entitled thereto. The consumers of justice should feel that they have received justice in reality and not merely on papers.”

“As no remedy will be available against the first appellate order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings filed before the District Forum, the aggrieved party will be at liberty to avail of the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.”

“In the case in hand, order passed in execution was challenged… by filing revision petitions before the State Commission, whereas the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. As the issues were considered in detail by the State Commission, the revision petitions so filed would be considered to be appeals against the order passed by the District Forum.”

“We have been ably assisted by Shri R. Venkatramani, Attorney General for India & Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, who was appointed as amicus to assist this Court, in view of the anomalies noticed in the 1986 Act, regarding execution of the final orders, after its amendment by the 2002 Amendment Act.”

The Bench formalized its operative directions for the interregnum period and for remedies in execution. On the statutory interpretation of Section 25(1), it directed that “Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act shall be read as enumerated below for the period from 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 with reference to all pending proceedings at any stage for execution of any order passed under the 1986 Act.” The Court then set out the substituted reading: “(1) Where any order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.”

With respect to the appellate path in execution, the Bench directed in express terms: “Against an order passed by the District Forum in execution petition, an appeal shall lie to the State Commission under Section 15 of the 1986 Act with no further remedy of appeal or revision.” It continued: “Against an order passed by the State Commission in the execution petition, no further appeal or revision shall lie.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court | Writ of Mandamus Cannot Compel Police to Register FIR | Complainant Must First Approach Magistrate

The Court disposed of the lis before it by ordering: “In view of the above, all the civil appeals are disposed of accordingly.” It added: “Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

In addition, the Court issued an institutional request to the NCDRC: “We request the Chairman, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to examine the issue and take appropriate steps for expeditious disposal of the execution petitions pending at different stages, in exercise of its powers under Section 70(1)(d) of the 2019 Act.” The Bench stated the purpose of effective execution by stating that “An order passed by any court, or any forum is merely a kind of paper decree unless effective relief is granted….”

Finally, the Court recorded appreciation: “We place on record our sincere appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India and Shri Jai Deep Gupta, learned senior counsel, and their team of lawyers, including Ms. Jharna and Mr. Shubham Singh Bhadouriya, Law Clerks-cum-Research Associate for assisting this Court to arrive at a conclusion which may resolve the anomalous situation in Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act.”

Case Title: Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1023

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 5536–5538 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 30579–30581 of 2019)

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari; Justice Rajesh Bindal