Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2023 of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’) in a First Appeal (F.A.No.654 of 2018) filed by the writ petitioner. The said First Appeal was filed against an order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III, Hyderabad (‘District Commission’) by which the writ petitioner was held guilty of non-compliance of the orders passed in the Consumer Case No.652 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.3/Complainant. The writ petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The writ petitioner claims to be the builder of a residential building in Hyderabad. The respondent No.3/Complainant filed the Consumer Case before the District Commission seeking several directions on the writ petitioner including to rectify the water leakages; demolition of the 2BHK flat constructed in parking area; compensation for deficit area, to make proper arrangement of parking area; provide municipal water connection or an alternative solution; to provide all documents pertaining to the Lift; to provide Extension Letter, Occupancy Certificate, Completion Certificate, Sound Certificate and Revised Sanction Plan and to pay damages of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. The District Commission partly allowed the Consumer Case vide order dated 23.11.2025 and directed the writ petitioner to rectify the defects in the flat purchased by the respondent No.3/Complainant in the building constructed by the writ petitioner and to pay the respondent No.3 a sum of Rs.1,000/- p.m. towards drinking water charges. The writ petitioner was also directed to hand over the Occupancy Certificate, Revised Sanction Plan and Completion Certificate to the respondent No.3/Complainant. The District Forum refused to grant a few reliefs claimed by the respondent No.3, namely, to demolish the two Bedroom flat constructed in the parking area and the entitlement of the respondent No.3/Complainant over 25 sft. Area along with interest @ 20% on the market value.

4. The writ petitioner failed to comply with the directions contained in the order passed by the District Commission on 23.11.2015. The respondent No.3 filed an Execution Application (E.A.No.37 of 2016) under section 27 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘1986 Act’) for prosecution of the writ petitioner and for punishing him for non-compliance of the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the District Commission. The District Commission disposed of the Execution Application by order dated 12.12.2018 convicting the writ petitioner under section 255(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’) for the offence under section 27 of the 1986 Act and imposed a sentence of two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the writ petitioner.

5. The writ petitioner filed the First Appeal (F.A.No.654 of 2018) before the State Commission challenging the District Commission’s order dated 12.12.2018. The State Commission considered the rival submissions of the parties and held the writ petitioner to be guilty for non-compliance of the order dated 23.11.2015. The State Commission proceeded to dispose of the First Appeal by modifying the order passed by the District Commission and reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment from two years to six months. The State Commission confirmed the fine amount imposed by the District Commission. The State Commission’s order dated 11.01.2023 forms the subject matter of the present Writ Petition.

6. The writ petitioner has been enjoying an interim order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 31.03.2023 in terms of stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the State Commission dated 11.01.2023.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner complied with all the directions passed by the District Commission save and except obtaining the Occupancy Certificate due to the objections filed by the respondent No.3 before the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad and there was no willful disobedience on the part of the writ petitioner. The primary submission of counsel is that the State Commission erred in deciding the merits of the Appeal without bringing on record the legal heirs of the respondent No.3, who passed away on 02.01.2022 during the pendency of the First Appeal. Counsel submits that the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice `of the State Commission by the writ petitioner vide the Memo dated 07.07.2022 despite which no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs of the respondent No.3 on record. Counsel further submits that a conviction under section 27 of the 1986 Act requires a specific finding of willful disobedience and that neither the District Commission nor the State Commission recorded such findings in the orders.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 (the husband of the deceased respondent No.3) objects to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy available under section 19 of the 1986 Act before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’). Counsel submits that there is no complaint of breach of principles of natural justice which would persuade the Writ Court to interfere with the proceedings. Counsel also relies on section 27A of the 1986 Act which provides for a three-tiered Appeal mechanism from an order passed under section 27 of the Act (i.e., Penalities) from the District Forum to the State Commission, from the State Commission to the National Commission and from the National Commission to the Supreme Court.

9. Counsel submits that the petitioner has failed to hand over the Occupancy Certificate, the sanctioned plan and the Compliance Certificate to the respondent No.3 due to which the deceased complainant/respondent No.3 was compelled to litigate for several years seeking the documents after purchase of the residential flat and unfortunately passed away without receiving any of the aforesaid documents. Counsel submits that the writ petitioner continues to remain in default of the order passed by the District Commission.

10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (Builder) and the respondent No.4 (husband of the deceased complainant) and perused the material relevant to the submissions.

11. We first wish to deal with the issue of maintainability raised on behalf of the respondent No.4.

12. According to counsel, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under section 27A of the 1986 Act. Section 27A deals with ‘Appeal against order passed under section 27’. Section 27A(1) begins with a non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal under section 27, both on law and on facts, shall lie from-

               (a) The order made by the District Forum to the State Commission;

               (b) The order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and

               (c) The order made by the National Commission to the supreme Court.

13. Section 27A(1) which is relevant for the present adjudication is reiterated above.

14. Counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the writ petitioner’s remedy lies under section 27A which provides for an appeal to the National Commission from the order passed by the State Commission as per section 27A(1)(b). The impugned order dated 11.01.2023 in the present case was passed by the State Commission.

15. The argument of the respondent No.4 objecting to the maintainability of the Writ Petition must be placed in the context of the hierarchy provided under section 27A of the 1986 Act. The appeal provision under section 27A would only be applicable where the order has been passed by the first Court under section 27 of the Act – ‘Penalties’. Section 27(1) contemplates a situation where a person, against whom a complaint has been made, or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission, such trader or complainant shall in such cases be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

16. Section 27(2) states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C the District Forum or the State Commission/National Commission shall be conferred with powers similar to that of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under the Act and the Forums on which the powers are conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Cr.P.C. Section 27(3) provides that offences under the Act shall be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Forum or the National Commission, as the case may be.

17. Section 27A envisages a hierarchy in terms of the gradation of Courts. Section 27A of the Act delineates the appellate structure in respect of orders imposing penalties under Section 27. Section 27A(1)(a) and (b) makes it explicit that an appeal shall lie to the forum immediately superior to the one which passed the order, namely, from the District Forum to the State Commission and from the State Commission to the National Commission, respectively. Section 27A(1)(c) provides that an appeal from an order of the National Commission shall lie to the Supreme Court. Section 27A(2) further places a bar against appeals being preferred to any Court other than those specified under Section 27A(1).

18. The argument of the writ petitioner must also be placed in the within the framework of section 27A of the Act. The writ petitioner’s case is that he has already exhausted his remedy under section 27A by filing an Appeal before the State Commission challenging the order dated 12.12.2018 of the District Forum in the Execution Application filed by the respondent No.3 (the deceased Complainant). According to counsel, the petitioner filed the First Appeal (FA.No.654 of 2018) challenging the order passed by the District Forum dated 12.12.2018 holding the petitioner to be guilty of non-compliance of the orders passed in the Consumer Case and convicting the petitioner under section 225 of the Cr.P.C for offences under section 27 of the 1986 Act. Hence, it is urged that the writ petitioner cannot be relegated once again to section 27A since the petitioner has already availed of the said provision for challenging the order passed by the District Forum before the State Commission.

19. We however do not find the petitioner’s argument to be tenable. As stated above, section 27A contemplates a hierarchy-oriented appeal mechanism where the order passed by the Court inferior in the hierarchy is only appealable to the immediate superior Court. There is nothing in section 27A to suggest that once an order is passed by the superior forum in an Appeal under section 27A, the next superior forum would be divested of its jurisdiction as the next-in-line appellate Court.

20. In essence, the person who has failed to comply with the order made by any of the three forums under the Act, or the Complainant guilty of non-compliance under section 27 of the Act and is liable to be penalized for it, cannot jettison the appeal framework under section 27A once the designated forum has already disposed of the matter. In other words, the aggrieved person cannot approach the Writ Court on the pretext that the remedy provided under section 27A has been exhausted.

21. Section 27A(2) of the Act bars filing of the Appeal to any Court from an order of the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission except as stipulated under section 27A(1). Although the prohibition may not apply to a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the person who intends to invoke the Writ jurisdiction of a High Court must show that there are exceptional circumstances as to why the redressal mechanism provided in section 27A would cease to apply in the facts.

22. Shorn of further elaboration, we deem it fit to hold that the writ petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstances warranting interference of the Writ Court. It is clear that writ petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under section 27A(b) of the Act, namely, filing an Appeal before the National Commission challenging the impugned order passed by the State Commission on 11.01.2023. The only argument made on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the State Commission misconstrued and failed to apply Order XXII Rule 12 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) relating to the various circumstances of death, marriage, insolvency of parties, as stipulated in Rules 3, 4 and 8 of Order XXII of the CPC.

23. Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC provides for the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff and Order XXII Rule 4 provides for the procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs/ defendants are to be made a party to the suit and the Court shall thereon proceed with the suit. Order XXII Rule 8 deals with the plaintiff’s insolvency and provides that the suit shall not abate subject to certain circumstances.

24. Order XXII Rules 3 and 4 are relevant to the instant proceedings. Order XXII Rule 12 provides that nothing in Rules 3, 4 and 8 of Order XXII of the CPC shall apply to the proceedings for execution of orders. Order XXII Rule 12 assumes relevance in view of death of respondent No.3/Complainant on 02.01.2022 i.e., during pendency of the first appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the State Commission. However, contrary to the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner with regard to the misconstruction of Order XXII Rule 12 of the CPC, we find that the State Commission has relied on the very decision which the petitioner has relied on in the Writ Petition, namely, V.Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali ((1998) 3 SCC 148).

25. In V.Uthirapathi (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with Order XXII Rule 12 of the CPC and held that the execution petition remains pending on the file of the executing Court even where the Decree Holder dies and his legal representatives do not come on record or the Judgment Debtor dies and his legal representatives are not brought on record. The Supreme Court opined that there would be no abatement or dismissal of the execution petition for default or even dismissed as abated behind the back of the legal representatives. The Supreme Court further went on to hold that it is open to the Decree Holder’s legal representatives to file a fresh petition in the case of death of Decree Holder or Judgment Debtor and that the fresh execution petition would only be a continuation of the pending execution petition.

26. The State Commission duly considered the effect of V. Uthirapathi (supra) and referred to Mulla’s Commentary on Civil Procedure Code to conclude that Order XXII Rule 12 is to the benefit of the Decree Holder and gives liberty to the legal representatives to continue with the execution petition immediately upon being brought on record. The State Commission accordingly held that Order XXII Rule 12 would not prohibit proceeding with the merits of the Appeal.

27. In the present case, although the Complainant had passed away by the time of pronouncement of the impugned order was pronounced, we do not find any illegality in the State Commission proceeding to decide the First Appeal filed by the writ petitioner by reason of the exception carved out in Order XXII Rule 12 of the CPC in proceeding for execution of a decree or order.

28. The writ petitioner filed the First Appeal from the order passed by the District Commission in the Execution Application filed by the Complainant for the writ petitioner’s non-compliance of the order passed by the District Commission dated 23.11.2015. Thus, the First Appeal filed by the writ petitioner was in continuance of the execution proceedings filed by the Complainant in relation to the District Forum’s order dated 23.11.2015. In essence, the fact that the legal representative of the deceased Complainant was not being brought on record before the State Commission cannot be regarded as a ground to hold that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the law.

29. Even otherwise, abatement of suits in the event of the legal representatives of the deceased not being brought on board within the stipulated time, is saved where the decree or order is in execution. This is only to protect the right of the Decree Holder even where his/her legal representative or the legal representative of the Judgment Debtor has not been brought on board. Applying the same analogy, the writ petitioner being the alleged defaulter of the directions passed by the District Commission on 23.11.2015, cannot use the death of the Complainant and the subsequent failure of the legal representatives being brought on record as a ground to challenge the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

30. Therefore, we deem it fit to hold that the writ petitioner has not established exceptional circumstances for the Writ Court to interfere and intervene where the writ petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under section 27A(1)(b) of the 1986 Act to approach the National Commission by way of an appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

31. In view of the specific recording of the State commission that the writ petitioner has complied with all the directions passed by the District Commission, which were within his control and that the Complainant was negligent in taking timely action with regard to the complaints, we deem it fit to suspend the sentence of six months imposed by the State Commission until the National Commission passes further orders in the Appeal. The fine imposed by the District Commission shall remain.

32. W.P.No.8926 of 2023, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the National Commission by 31.08.2026 for challenging the impugned order dated 11.01.2023. The sentence of imprisonment of six months shall stand suspended till 01.09.2026 subject to further orders passed by the National Commission.