This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to “interim orders” only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read “any order” in place of “interim order,” thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint in 2007, directing the builder to execute the deed. To enforce this order, the appellant filed an execution petition. The District Forum appointed a commissioner to draft the deed and, after considering objections, approved it in November 2007. The respondents challenged this execution order before the State Commission by filing revision petitions. The State Commission allowed these petitions and set aside the District Forum’s execution order. The appellant then filed revision petitions before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the State Commission’s order. The NCDRC dismissed the revisions, holding them non-maintainable. It reasoned that the respondents should have filed an appeal, not a revision, against the District Forum’s order, and thus, the State Commission’s order was deemed to have been passed in appellate jurisdiction. The appellant society appealed to the Supreme Court against this NCDRC order.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the appellant society filing an execution petition before the District Forum to enforce its earlier order directing the execution of a conveyance deed. The District Forum approved the deed in November 2007. The respondents challenged this execution order by filing revision petitions under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Commission, which allowed the petitions and set aside the District Forum’s order. The appellant then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) by filing execution revision petitions. The NCDRC, vide its order dated July 16, 2019, dismissed these petitions as non-maintainable, opining that the State Commission’s order, though termed a revision, should be treated as an appeal. The appellant society subsequently filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court, which granted leave and led to the present civil appeals.
READ ALSO:Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations to resolve the legal anomaly. It noted that the 2002 amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, created a legislative gap by replacing the phrase “every order” in Section 25 with “interim order,” thereby inadvertently removing the provision for enforcing final orders. The Court observed that this drafting error led to an absurd and impractical situation, rendering consumer forums toothless for a significant period. Applying the principles of purposive interpretation, the Court held that this was a classic case of casus omissus (an omission in the statute) that could be judicially corrected to align with the beneficial spirit of the consumer legislation. It consequently read down Section 25(1) to mean “any order” for the period 2003-2020, making final orders enforceable as civil court decrees. Additionally, the Court clarified the appellate hierarchy, ruling that an order in execution passed by a District Forum is appealable to the State Commission, but no further appeal lies to the National Commission.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by providing a conclusive interpretation to rectify the legislative gap. It was held that for the period from 15th March 2003 to 20th July 2020, the term “interim order” in Section 25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall be read as “any order.” Consequently, all orders, including final orders, passed by consumer fora during this period are enforceable as if they were decrees of a civil court, with the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC applying. The Court affirmed that an appeal against a District Forum’s order in execution lies to the State Commission under Section 15, but no further appeal or revision is maintainable thereafter. The NCDRC was requested to expedite the disposal of pending execution petitions.
Case Details:
Case Title: Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates Etc. Citation: 2025 INSC 1023 Civil Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5536-5538 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 22, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Download The Judgement Here