Judgment :- The 8th opposite party in C.O.P.No.140 of 1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli is the revision petitioner. This revision is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in R.P.No.35 of 2000 dated 3.11.2000 as per which, the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli in E.P.No.43 of 2000 in C.O.P.No.140 of 1997 dated 26.9.2000 was confirmed. 2. The respondents herein filed C.O.P.No.140 of 1997 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, for repayment of fixed deposit amount and for damages. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- towards principal amount of two fixed deposits in question and also directing further to pay the sum of Rs.400/- towards interest for the month of June, 1997 and to pay interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount from September, 1997 till payment and also awarded cost of Rs.500/-. Such order was passed on 20.1.1998. One month time was granted to comply the order. Since the amount was not paid as awarded in the C.O.P.No.140 of 1997, the complainant filed E.P.No.43 of 2000 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act against the revision petitioner, viz., the 8th opposite party and the execution proceedings were contested by the revision petitioner by engaging counsel. 3. In the E.P.No.43 of 2000, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for non-compliance of the award passed in C.O.P.No.140 of 1997. Against the said order, the revision petitioner filed R.P.No.35 of 2000 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and at the admission stage itself, the R.P.No.35 of 2000 was rejected in limini. Such order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/8th opposite party argued that the revision as filed against the rejection of R.P.No.35 of 2000 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is maintainable. 6. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads thus:- "15. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/8th opposite party argued that the revision as filed against the rejection of R.P.No.35 of 2000 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is maintainable. 6. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads thus:- "15. Appeal – Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filling it within that period: Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent, of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.(inserted by Act No.62 of 2002, dated 17.12.2002)" Section 19 of the said Act reads thus:- "19. Appeals – Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause(i) of Clause (a) of Section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:" Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be dismissed as not maintainable, in that specific remedy is available by way of appeal as contemplated under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. 7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with cost as not maintainable.