ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

1.      Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the material on record.

2.      The instant appeal, ‘Appeal Execution’ No. 68 of 2020, has been filed before this Commission under Section 51 of the new Act i.e. the Act 2019, impugning the Orders dated 31.07.2019 and dated 26.08.2020 passed under Section 25 of the old Act i.e. the Act 1986 in execution of the Order dated 18.08.2016 which was passed under the Act 1986 and which has attained finality within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act 1986.

3.      The right to the Complainant / Decree Holder accrued under the old Act i.e. the Act 1986, under which the Order dated 18.08.2016 was passed. The execution was filed under Section 25 of the Act 1986. The proceedings before the executing forum i.e. the State Commission initiated under Section 25 of the Act 1986. The substantive provisions of the old Act i.e. the Act 1986 are applicable. Appeal under Section 51 of the new Act i.e. the Act 2019 is not maintainable.

4.      Under the old Act i.e. the Act 1986, also, it may be seen that execution proceedings, to execute an Order that has attained finality within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act 1986, whether for ‘Enforcement’ under Section 25(3), or for ‘Penalties’ under Section 27, are distinctively different from adjudication of a ‘complaint’, are separate and independent proceedings. Section 19, ‘Appeals’, is in relation to adjudication of a ‘complaint’. Remedy against an Order passed under Section 25(3), ‘Enforcement’, in execution of an Order that has attained finality, in the separate and independent execution proceedings, does not lie under Section 19 of the Act 1986 (corresponding Section 51 of the new Act i.e. the Act 2019).

5.      Either way, thus, the instant appeal, ‘A.E.’ No. 68 of 2020, is not maintainable.

6.      The appeal is dismissed on maintainability. 

7.      Needless to add that as the instant appeal has been dism