Order Passed By Court Or Forum Is Merely A Kind Of Paper Decree Unless Effective Relief Granted To Entitled Party: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, remarked that 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 Court was hearing Civil Appeals filed by a society, assailing the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “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.”

AOR Lekha G.V. represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Jaideep Gupta represented the Respondents. Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Lawyers Jharna, and Shubham Singh Bhadouriya assisted the Court.

Court’s Observations

The Court said that for execution of any Order except where monetary compensation has been awarded, if provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are considered, post the 2002 Amendment Act, there is no provision providing for enforcement of Orders.

“Even though the 1986 Act is a self-contained code, apparently, there being remedy, and earlier provisions providing for execution of order as a decree of civil court, the person in whose favor such an order is passed may have to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. This does not go with the spirit of the 1986 Act where informal procedure had been provided to make it more user friendly”, it added.

The Court was of the view that 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’.

“As has been seen, post the amendment carried out by the 2002 Amendment Act, timelines have been provided for decision of complaints and appeals. From the information, as furnished by the learned Attorney General for India in the Court, there are many execution petitions pending before different Fora from the year 1992 onwards”, it noted.

The Court, therefore, requested the Chairman, NCDRC 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 Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

“In the present case, the order dated 20.11.2007 was passed by the District Forum in Execution Petition No. E-22 of 2007 filed by the appellant-society. In case any person was aggrieved thereof, the proper remedy was to file appeal against that order before the State Commission as provided under Section 15 of the Act. Thereafter, no remedy of appeal or revision therefrom is provided”, it further noted.

Conclusion

The Court observed that the Order passed by the State Commission impugned before the National Commission could not be considered to have been passed under Section 27-A of the 1986 Act, as it limited filing of Appeals against an Order passed under Section 27 of the Act and the Order passed by the District Forum in the case in hand was under Section 25 of the 1986 Act and not under Section 27.

“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. … Against an order passed by the State Commission in the execution petition, no further appeal or revision shall lie”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals.

Cause Title- Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1023)

Click here to read/download the Judgment