Smt. Manju Rani Patra vs Smt. Anjali Adak And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4078 Cal

4th August,

(AK)

C.O. 343 of 2020 IA No: CAN 1 of 2021

Smt. Manju Rani Patra Vs.

Smt. Anjali Adak and others

(Via video conference)

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy ... For the Petitioner.

Despite service, none appears for the opposite

parties.

Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on

record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends at the

outset, on query of this court regarding jurisdiction of

this court, that no revision under Section 21(b) of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable against

an appellate order passed by the State Commission in

connection with an execution proceeding before the

district forum.

Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of

Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani , reported at

AIR 2019 SC 2290 in support of such proposition.

By drawing analogy therefrom, learned counsel

contends that, equally, a revisional application is not

maintainable before the State forum against an order

passed by the district forum in an execution proceeding.

It is further contended that the impugned order

was passed palpably without jurisdiction inasmuch as

the District forum directed acceptance of penalty amount

of Rs.2,75,500/-, payable by the award debtors/opposite

parties, despite the sum awarded amounting to a much

higher amount (Rs.3,62,500/- as per the petitioner's

allegation).

However, it is evident from the ratio laid down in

Karnataka Housing Board (supra) that the same is not

applicable to the present case at all.

One cannot proceed on the premise of surmise on

what a judgment could connote, although the facts of the

reported citation were entirely different.

Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court held in the said

report that no further revision lies against an appellate

order passed by the State forum, arising out of an

execution proceeding before the District forum.

However, such ratio cannot be used as an analogy

to the State forum, since in the reported case itself, the

State forum had been moved in appeal, the jurisdiction of

which was not negated by the Supreme Court.

That apart, since the remedy of a revision before

the State forum is equally efficacious and effective as the

present application, if not more, it would not be advisable

to entertain this application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, since such an order would open a

flood-gate of challenges before this court unnecessarily,

despite availability of an equally efficacious alternative

remedy.

Although such remedy is not absolutely barred, it

has been held by the Supreme Court time and again that

the High Courts should apply a self-imposed restriction in

exercising jurisdictions, where alterative remedies are

available, and such interference is restricted to the small

window of the rarest of rare cases.

No such exceptional case having been made out in

the present instance, C.O. 343 of 2020 is dismissed as

not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to

approach the appropriate State forum challenging the

order impugned herein.

Liberty is granted to the learned advocate for the

petitioner to take back the certified copy of the impugned

order, upon furnishing of a duly attested copy thereof as

required by procedure.

CAN 1 of 2021 is also dismissed accordingly.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

necessary formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)