1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh, husband of Respondent Bharti Singh.

2. Challenge is to the order dated 27.06.2025 of the State Commission in EA No.3 of 2020 vide which certain directions have been issued to the Appellant herein, who was the Judgment Debtor. Earlier, First Appeal filed by the Appellant herein vide No.563 of 2014 along with First Appeal No.573/2014 filed by the Respondent herein were disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 26.02.2020 as per following directions:

                          "9. The appeals are therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

                          (i) The Builder M/s Friends Lies Estate & Essential Pvt. Ltd. shall deliver possession of the flat No. 6E in Block B of Twin Towers Building to the complainant within six weeks from today at a price of Rs.1175/- per sq. ft.

                          (ii) The price of the flat at the above referred rates shall be calculated by the builder and conveyed to the complainant within two weeks from today, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- already paid by her, the complainant shall pay the balance amount to the developer within two weeks thereafter.

                          (iii) If it transpires that the flat No. 6E in Block B has already been sold to someone and therefore, is not available for being made available to the complainant, the builder shall pay the difference between the price of flat of 6E in Block B calculated at the current circle rate and the price, which the complainant had agreed to pay to it, within six weeks from today.

                          (iv) The builder shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused by it to the complainant."

3. While passing the above said direction, this Commission also made certain observations in para 8 of its order which is also reproduced below:

                          "8. The submission of the complainant is that in fact Flat No. 6E is still available with the builder and can be provided to the complainant As per Annexure to the affidavit filed by Shri Ajay Kumar before this Commission on 10.12.2014, Flat No. 6E stood allotted to Major Kishore Kumar. This was also the position as per his subsequent affidavit dated 06.7.2015 where Flat No.6E was shown jointly in the name of Major Kishore Kumar and his wife Mrs. Mamta Mishra. The complainant has filed a copy of the sale deed executed by the builder on 28.8.2015. A perusal of the sale deed would show that Flat No.6A and not Flat 6E in Block B of the building 'Prabha Twin Towers' was sold to them by the builder. It is thus evident that the flat No.6E should still be available with the builder he having sold flat No. 6A to Major Kishore Kumar and his wife Smt. Mamta Mishra. Therefore, I see no reason why the builder M/s Friends Lies Estate & Essential Pvt. Ltd. should not provide flat No.6E in block 8 of the building to the complainant at a price of Rs.1175/- per sq. ft. The learned counsel appearing for the builder however submits that as per his instructions Flat No. 6 E has already been sold."

4. Relying on the above said order of this Commission, the State Commission has directed the Judgment Debtor to comply with the directions in para 9 (i), (ii) and (iv) of the order. However, it is contended by the learned Counsel representing the Appellant herein that the State Commission has failed to take note of the directions in para 9 (iii), contending that the subject flat 6 E in Block B has already been sold to someone and therefore, not available for being made available to the Complainant. Hence, in the present case, the Appellant herein is willing to refund the amount in accordance with direction in para 9 (iii). However, on the other hand it is contended by the Respondent herein that the flat 6 E has not been sold yet. Although our attention was drawn by the Appellant herein towards Agreement to Sale dated 15.02.2018 in favour of M/s Millennium Infra and Reality projects Pvt. Ltd., learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly admitted that this Agreement to Sale did not culminate into Sale and consequently, no sale deed was signed as it was stated by an order of the Civil Court (copy of the order is at page 54-56). Further, the Respondent also drawing our attention to para 8 of this Commission's order dated 26.02.2020 contended that the plea of the Appellant herein that flat 6 E has been allotted to Major Kishore Kumar is factually incorrect as flat 6 A was allotted to Mr. Kishore Kumar and not 6 E. In this regard, he has filed certain documents with the Registry online on 12.08.2026. During the hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly admitted that flat 6 E having been allotted to Major Kishore Kumar is a mistake in para 8 of the order of this Commission referred to above. As per their case, flat 6 E is covered under agreement to sale to M/s Millennium Infra and Reality projects Pvt. Ltd.

5. It was also fairly admitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 is not an order under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The scope of maintainability of Appeal under Section 73 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter 2019 Act) came up for consideration before this Commission in AE/84/2018 and connected cases N. Muthappa Rai & Anr. Vs. M/s. Aslam Carpets Pvt Ltd. & Ors. in the context similar provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter 1986 Act) (Section 27 and section 27(A), wherein this Commission vide its order dated 09.12.2024 held that the Appeal that may be filed under Section 27 (A) of the 1986 Act (corresponding to Section 73 of the 2019 Act) must relate to and would lie against the orders which may be passed under Section 27 of the 1986 Act (Corresponding to Section 72 of the 2019 Act) only. The Commission also observed that the only provision which confers the right to file an Appeal regarding orders passed during the course of proceedings under Section 27 of 1986 Act (corresponding to Section 72 of the 2019 Act) is Section 27A (corresponding Section 73 of 2019 Act), but the provision relates only to the orders that may be passed under Section 27 of the 1986 Act (corresponding to Section 72 of the 2019 Act) whereby conviction or penalties are imposed on the non-compliant defaulter. This order also records that in the Act 2019 also similar is the position in this regard, wherein Section 73 finds its place and it specifically provides to file Appeals against orders that may be filed under Section 72 of the Act imposing punishment of imprisonment or fine. The Commission also observed in this case that orders passed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the orders passed under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are the orders that may be passed during the course of the adjudication of a Complaint and not the orders passed after the completion of such adjudication. Hence, strictly speaking, execution proceedings initiated by the State Commission under Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are not appealable before this Commission under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in view of the above stated judgment dated 09.12.2024 of this Commission.

6. A careful perusal of the order of the State Commission, this Commission's order dated 26.02.2020 and other relevant documents, especially, the Agreement for Sale dated 15.02.2018 and the Civil Court's order dated 26.02.2018 clearly show that the said flat 6 E had still not been sold to anybody. Agreement for Sale cannot be treated as actual sale. Hence, the Respondent/Decree Holder is justified on insisting the implementation of the order of this Commission in para 9 (i), (ii) and (iv) and he is not obliged to get refund of the money in accordance with para 9 (iii). Hence, the State Commission was justified in giving directions to the Judgment Debtors vide its order dated 27.06.2025 for implementation of the directions in para 9 (i), (ii) and (iv). We find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. Accordingly, the same is upheld.

7. AE is not found to be maintainable. Accordingly, AE No.8 of 2026 is dismissed.