ORDER
Sengupta, J.
1. None appears to oppose the writ petition. The grievance of the writ, petitioner in this case is that the orders passed by State Consumer Redressal Forum while exercising the Appellate Jurisdiction cannot be executed by the State Commissioner. Mr. Nayek, appearing for the petitioner submits that if Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is read carefully then it would appear the execution proceeding has to be initiated and be dealt with treating the same as a decree of the Civil Court passed in a suit pending therein under Section 25 of the said Act. Section 25 of the said Act is set out hereinunder :–
“Section 25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.– Every order made by the district Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it shall toe lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction —
a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated,
and thereupon the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution.”
2. He submits that the entertainment of the execution application and the order passed thereon by the State Consumer Forum are wholly nullity and without jurisdiction. This execution proceeding should not have been levied at the first instance before the learned District Redressal Forum. By this process State Consumer Forum has usurped the jurisdiction of the District Forum in execution application.
3. I find there is some substance in this submission. Upon careful reading of the said Section it appears to me that in this case State Commission had exercised jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority nor as a forum of first instance. Though the order of District Consumer Forum was modified but then the execution proceeding should not have been levied by the State Consumer Forum. The Legislature expressly intended that execution proceeding should be followed as it is followed in case of a decree of the Civil Suit. Enforcement of the decree and order of Civil Court is always regulated by the Civil Procedure Code. Under the provision of Sections 37(a) and 38 and Order 21, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the decree has to be executed by the learned Trial Judge of first instance. Under the provision of the said Act three forums viz. District, State and National have their own original defined jurisdiction apart from having appellate jurisdiction in case of State and National Forum. In the event the decree is modified by the Appellate Court then the decree of the Appellate Court shall be executed. Accordingly I uphold the contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution naturally the order passed by it is also a nullity. Accordingly the same is set aside.
4. It would be open for the District Consumer Forum to take steps for application for execution in the event the complainant/ respondent approaches before it. This order, however, will be effective provided the writ petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 300/-with the learned District Consumer Forum. The said amount shall be kept for a period of four months and in the event no action is taken by the complainant before the forum for enforcement of the order the aforesaid amount shall be returned to the writ petitioner/respondent.
5. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the non-appearing respondent by the learned Advocate-on-record of Mr. Nayek.
6. There will be no order as to costs.
7. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.