IMPORTANT POINT
Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—Three Consumer Complaints were instituted before the State Commission against five persons including the appellant Hardayal Singh Mann who was impleaded as OP No.4 in the Consumer Complaints. The Consumer Complaints were allowed by the State Commission on 14.05.2019 against all the OPs including the appellant Hardayal Singh Mann. No appeal by the appellant was preferred against the order passed by the State Commission in the Consumer Complaints. The learned counsel for the appellant is not aware whether the other OPs had preferred any appeal or not.

2. Since the order passed by the State Commission was not complied, execution proceedings were initiated against the OPs in the Consumer Complaints including the appellant herein. The Non-Bailable Warrants of the arrest of the appellant were issued by the State Commission on 30.06.2020 for 21.07.2020. Since the warrants were not executed for that date, the same were again issued for 14.09.2020 and were sent to SSP, Mohali.

3. The State Commission had heard the matter on 29.04.2020 when an advocate had appeared for the appellant Hardayal Singh Mann and the order issuing Non-Bailable Warrants of his arrest was passed in the presence of the counsel.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that though she has not placed on record the copy of the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the State Commission in the execution proceedings, the said Commission had again directed issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants of the arrest of the appellant on that date. Her submission is that the appellant was not even a Director of the OP No.1 Company since 17.10.2014 he having resigned from the Directorship of the company.

5. In my opinion, since the Consumer Complaints were allowed against all the OPs in the Consumer Complaints including the appellant Hardayal Singh Mann, the appropriate remedy for him is to challenge the order passed by the State Commission in the Consumer Complaint. As far as execution is concerned, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and therefore, the State Commission has no option but to execute the order as passed in the Consumer Complaints irrespective of whether the appellant had resigned from the Directorship of the company or not. Since an executing Court cannot go behind the decree, it was not open to the State Commission nor is it open to this Commission to examine, in execution proceedings, as to whether the appellant had resigned from the Directorship of the company as is claimed by him or not. Similarly, neither the State Commission acting in the execution proceedings nor this Commission, while hearing an appeal arising out of the execution proceedings, can go into this question. Therefore, no relief to the appellant can be granted in these appeals.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeals are dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of these appeals will not come in the way of the appellant filing appeals against the orders passed by the State Commission in the Consumer Complaints on all such grounds as may be open to him in law and also to seek condonation of delay in institution of such appeals. If and when such appeals alongwith the application for condonation of delay are filed, they will be heard and examined on their own merits.

The appellant however, is permitted to apply to the State Commission to be released on his personal bond if he is unable to arrange a surety. If such a request is made, it will be examined by the State Commission on its own merits.