1. Challenge to execution orders under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Dispute over issuance of NOC and difference of amount. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(MP) 1021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Deepak Khot, J.
M/S. Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Urmila Soni – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 490 of 2023
Decided On : 28-08-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Rajesh Maindiretta
For the Respondent:Shri Arun Kumar Singh Ms. Ritika Jhawar, Advocate
For the Petitioner: Shri Rajesh Maindiretta
For the Respondent:Shri Arun Kumar Singh Ms. Ritika Jhawar, Advocate
High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors and cannot be used for re-evaluating facts or law. Additionally, an executing court is bound by the original decree and cannot modify its terms or go beyond its scope.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 27 and 27-A - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of interference - High Court under supervisory jurisdiction can only correct jurisdictional errors and cannot act as an appellate court to review or re-weigh evidence or correct errors of law or fact - Interference is permissible only when there is patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 10, 11).
(B) Execution of Decree - Power of Executing Court - An executing court cannot pass any order beyond the decree nor can it question the legality and validity of such decree unless it is declared a nullity (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
A financial institution was directed by a consumer forum to issue a no objection certificate (NOC) and duplicate keys to a respondent upon payment of a designated difference in amount. During execution proceedings, a dispute arose regarding the quantum of this difference. The financial institution claimed a significantly higher amount than what was adjudicated in the original complaint case and sought the modification of the execution order. Both the district forum and the state commission upheld the original quantum. The financial institution then challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
The amount in dispute had been decided by the consumer forum after due deliberation of evidence in the original complaint case. The financial institution failed to agitate the higher amount during the original proceedings. Consequently, the executing court was correct in refusing to go beyond the scope of the original decree. The orders of the lower forums did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Issues: Whether a petition under Article 227 is maintainable against orders in execution proceedings passed by consumer forums and whether the executing court can reconsider the quantum of payment already decided in the original decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring that inferior courts function within the bounds of their authority and cannot be invoked to correct mere errors of law or fact. Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law that an executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree it is tasked to execute.
Result: The petition filed by the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims difference amount not paid; respondent asserts amount already adjudicated in original order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Petition dismissed — No jurisdictional error found — Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 not attracted. (Para 12 )
4. Is a petition under Article 227 maintainable against orders in execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act?
Yes, because no revision lies before the National Commission; remedy lies under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Para 2 , 9 )
5. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227?
It is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors; it cannot act as an appellate court or re-weigh evidence. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can an executing court pass orders beyond the decree?
No, the executing court cannot go beyond the decree nor question its legality unless declared nullity. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
DEEPAK KHOT, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure-P/3) and 23.09.2022 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa and the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal respectively. Vide Annexure- P/3 dated 22.02.2012, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed an order in an execution proceeding directing the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 to hand over the key and No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the respondent no.1/applicant. The said order was challenged before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal and the State Commission, vide its order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure-P/5), has affirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition is maintainable in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani passed in Civil Appeal No.4631/2019; wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that any order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of the execution proceeding, no revision lies before the National Commission and therefore, remedy lies with this Court under the supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain such an order.
3. It has been submitted that the District Consumer Forum and thereafter, the Appellate Consumer Forum had erred in law and jurisdiction in directing the petitioner/non-applicant to issue NOC and duplicate keys of the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that in the original order allowing the Complaint Case No.238/2007 by order dated 25.11.2008, the Consumer Forum had directed the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 to deposit Rs.44,062/- in the loan account of the respondent/applicant and it was directed that on payment of difference of amount by the respondent/applicant, the NOC be issued in favor of the respondent/applicant. It is further submitted that no quantum of difference of amount has been decided by the Consumer Forum therefore, immediately after such order was passed a notice dated 28.01.2009 was issued by the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 wherein, the difference of amount to the tune of Rs. 1,78,629/- was demanded from the respondent/applicant in compliance of the order of the District Consumer Forum (Annexure-P/1). In response, it is submitted that no reply to such notice has been given by the respondent/applicant and as such, when the outstanding amount of Rs.1,78,629/- was not paid, the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 was not obliged to hand over the clearance certificate as directed by the District Consumer Forum. The order of the District Consumer Forum passed in the complaint case was conditional that in case the respondent/applicant deposits the difference of amount then only the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 is obliged to issue the NOC. When such payment was not made, the petitioner//non-applicant no.1 did not issue the NOC. It is further submitted that when such NOC was not issued, the respondent/applicant had filed an execution proceeding before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum, vide order dated 22.02.2012 (Annexure-P/3), has decided that the difference of amount is Rs.1045/- and as such, it is found that the said amount had already been deposited. The petitioner/non-applicant no.1 was required to hand over the NOC and duplicate keys of the vehicle.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 had filed an appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1986’) before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure-P/5), has affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum holding that there is no material irregularity or illegality found in the o
