1. The present Revision Petition under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by M/s. Ashok Auto Sales Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner/Opposite Party) against the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. SC/9/FA/324/2025, arising out of the order dated 11.12.2024, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 133/2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the learned State Commission has passed a non-speaking, unreasoned and cryptic order granting stay of the execution proceedings in the consumer complaint, subject to deposit of the entire decretal amount, which is Rs. 13,33,200/- along with 6% yearly interest from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs.50,000/- as mental compensation in Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs before the District Commission, after adjusting the amount deposited as the mandatory pre-deposit before the State Commission at the time of filing of the Appeal, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on following case Laws:

                   1. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bharat Enterprises Civil Appeal Nos. 3678-3679 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP Civil) Nos. 13166-13167 of 2020) decided on 16.11.2020;

                   2. TDI Infratech Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Arora 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3814 decided on 26.07.2021;

                   3. Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. Vs. Amazon Technologies Inc. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19767 of 2025 decided on 07.10.2025.

5. Considered the submissions made, perused the record and gone through the case Laws cited.

6. It appears that the learned State Commission in its order dated 09.09.2025, impugned herein, has ordered the petitioner / appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount before the concerned District Commission within a period of six weeks, while granting stay.

7. In Manohar Infrastructure and constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021decided on 07.12.2021, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

                   "15 . The sum and substance of the above discussion and our conclusions would be that:

                   (i) Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission;

                   (ii) The object of the said pre-deposit condition is to avoid frivolous appeals;

                   (iii) The said pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay by the National Commission;

                   (iv) While considering the stay application in staying the order passed by the State Commission, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire amount and / or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission;

                   (v) However, at the same time, the National Commission has to assign some cogent reasons and / or pass a speaking order when the conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission is passed subject to deposit of the entire amount and / or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount either as an ex parte order or after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

                   (vi) Thus, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission on deposit of the entire amount and / or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission in the aforesaid manner."

8. The conclusion (iii) noted above, shows that the Honble Supreme Court has made it clear that the pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay.

9. It is clear from the point No. (v) above, that if any amount higher than 50% is directed to be deposited then some cogent reasons should be given.

10. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned State Commission has directed to deposit the entire decretal amount (minus) the amount already deposited at the time of filing the appeal. It means, only 50% of the decretal amount has been directed to be deposited. This 50% of the amount should not be confused with the amount, which has been deposited as a pre-deposit for filing of the appeal as a mandatory condition provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, there appears no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Let the file be consigned in the record room after necessary action.