Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Shri Mohan Idiculla Abraham, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

L. Manoharan, President - Petition by the 3rd opposite party in the aforesaid• complaint for “passing appropriate orders” in view of what is averred in the affidavit filed by the 3rd opposite party on 14th September 2001. To this affidavit and petition, complainant has filed objection. Second Judgment Debtor has also filed objection. What is averred in the affidavit on behalf of the 3rd opposite party is that the vehicle in question is in a dismantled condition and therefore it is not repairable. Consequently with due regard to the scope of the prayer in the petition what the petitioner seeks to maintain is the order has become inexecutable for according to him the vehicle is in a dismantled condition. As per Sec. 25 of the Consumer Protection Act an order passed by the District Forum has to be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by the court. By virtue of the said provision the relevant provision in the CPC; Sec 47 and order 21 become applicable. The Scope of the petition as noted above relates to the execution discharge and satisfaction of the decree; ordinarily the said question would arise only in execution and as per Sec. 47 CPC such question has to be adjudicated by the Execution Court and not by a separate suit. Apart from the same in as much as the case of the petitioner is not admitted by the Complainant in his objection there must be material to support the averment in the affidavit as to the condition of the vehicle at the time of filing the petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel as to the condition of the vehicle he has produced certain photographs. As has noted the exhaustive discussion on the said matter, if at all, could arise only in the execution. We do not consider that the same could be entertained in the trial side particularly when the fora created under the Act does not have review jurisdiction. Mere production of photographs with negatives would not become evidence unless the photographer who took the same is examined. Therefore reliance cannot be made on the photograph. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.