Judgment Animadverting upon the order dated 211. 2009 passed in unnumbered E.P.CFR No.21326 of 2009 by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The short facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed order on 25.07.2005, whereupon the said order was sought to be got executed with the help of the same District Forum. However, the said District Forum issued a Certificate on 18.02.2006 in E.P.No.27 of 2006 and the operative portion of it would run thus: "THAT A COPY of this order be sent to the Learned Principal District Judge, District Court, Coimbatore with a copies of the orders and of any order which may have been made for execution and a certificate of non satisfaction. CERTIFIED THAT no satisfaction of the order of this Forum in Original Petition C.O.P.No.171 of 2003, E.A.No.27 of 2006 a copies of which is herein to attached has been obtained by execution within the jurisdiction of this Forum." (extracted as such) 4. Based on the same, when the party approached the District Court for getting the order executed, the District Court passed the order dated 211. 2009 and stated thus: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would cite the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 1043 [State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society and others], an excerpt from it would run thus: 63. The terminology used in Section 25 of the Act to the effect “in the event of its inability to execute it”, is of great significance. Section 25, on a plain reading, goes to show that the provision contained therein presuppose that the Forum or the Commission would be entitled to execute its order. It, however, may send the matter for its execution to a court only in the event it is unable to do so. Such a contingency may arise only in a given situation but in our considered opinion the same does not lead to the conclusion that the Consumer Courts cannot execute its own order and by compulsion it has to send all its orders for execution to the civil courts. Such a contingency may arise only in a given situation but in our considered opinion the same does not lead to the conclusion that the Consumer Courts cannot execute its own order and by compulsion it has to send all its orders for execution to the civil courts. Such construction of Section 25 in our opinion would violate the plain language used therein and, thus, must be held to be untenable." The letter dated 09.03.2009 sent to the learned Principal District Judge, District Court, Coimbatore, is extracted hereunder: "I am herewith forwarding the EP records along with certificate in EA 27 of 2007 in CC No.171 of 2003 for execution of the award u/s 25 of the C.P.Act 1986 read with order XXI rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as per reference cited." 7. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would point out that the said certificate coupled with the letter would show that the District Court which is having proper infrastructure to execute the award, would in the fitness of things be the appropriate forum to execute the award. A reading of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court cited supra coupled with the certificate as well as the letter sent by the Forum would amply make the point clear that in view of the nature of the work involved in executing the order, they have chosen to forward the E.P. itself to the District Court for execution. Hence, in such a case, the District Court is hereby directed to execute the said award as per law by treating it as E.P. and dispose it of as per law within a period of three months. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. To The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore DATED : 8. 2010 This matter is listed today under the caption for being mentioned. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for passing the following order would run thus:- This Court on 8. 2010 passed the order in this C.R.P. and the operative portion of which would run thus: "7. 2010 This matter is listed today under the caption for being mentioned. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for passing the following order would run thus:- This Court on 8. 2010 passed the order in this C.R.P. and the operative portion of which would run thus: "7. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would point out that the said certificate coupled with the letter would show that the District Court which is having proper infrastructure to execute the award, would in the fitness of things be the appropriate forum to execute the award. A reading of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court cited supra coupled with the certificate as well as the letter sent by the Forum would amply make the point clear that in view of the nature of the work involved in executing the order, they have chosen to forward the E.P. itself to the District Court for execution. Hence, in such a case, the District Court is hereby directed to execute the said award as per law by treating it as E.P. and dispose it of as per law within a period of three months. 4. However, while signing the fair order, I had a rethinking about the current law governing the execution of the awards/orders passed by the Consumer Forum. It is therefore just and necessary to refer to the relevant portion of The Consumer Protection Act 1996(hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Section 25 of the Act as it stands today by virtue of the Act 62 of 2002, which came into vogue with effect from 13. 2003, would run thus: "25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Consumer or the National Commission - .(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Consumer or the National Commission - .(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached. (2) Noattachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. .(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrea4s of land revenue." before such amendment, the repealed Section 25 of the Act would run thus: "25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- .(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or .(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution." 5. Only under the repealed Section 25 of the Act there was reference to the contingency that if the consumer forum which passed the order experiencing its inability to execute it, then in such an eventuality the order could be sent to the Court concerned for executing the same. The Honourable Apex Courts judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 1043 [State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society and others] refers to the repealed Sec.25 of the Act. The present Section 25 of the Act does not contemplate any such eventuality of the forum expressing inability to execute its own order and sending the same to the judicial Court concerned. 6. Indubitably and indisputably the award in this case was passed on 27. 2005, so to say, when the current Section 25 of the Act has already come into vogue. However, without taking into consideration the change in law, the Consumer Forum, it appears forwarded its order to the District Court, Coimbatore, for executing the same by issuing a certificate dated 12. 2006. Whereupon alone, the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, returned the said order as well as the requisition letter on the ground that there is no provision of law enabling the District Court to execute such order. .7. 2006. Whereupon alone, the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, returned the said order as well as the requisition letter on the ground that there is no provision of law enabling the District Court to execute such order. .7. In view of the change in the law it is crystal clear that the District Forum, which passed the order should make its own arrangement to execute the order. .8. At this juncture I recollect and call up the following maxim: .Quando aliquid mandatur, mandatur et omne per quod pervenitur ad illud When anything is commanded, everything by which it can be accomplished is also commanded. .9. I also hark back to the following maxim: .Tamil - Where there is a right there is a remedy 10. If at all the petitioner could establish his right to execute the decree with the help of the judicial Court, then the Court could be approached, as otherwise relying upon the first maxim cited, it is for the petitioner to get it executed only with the help of the same forum. The current Section 25 of the Act is also clear on that aspect and accordingly, the matter has to be processed. 11. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would cite the following decision of the Honourable Apex Court: (2010) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 257 -SPEEDLINE AGENCIES VS. T.STANES AND COMPANY LIMITED, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "25. Particularly in matters governed by the Rent Acts to take into account subsequent events would inflict hardship on the landlords, in a case like the present one. In this context, it was held in SCC para 9 of Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal that (SCC p.404) "9. The rent control legislations are heavily loaded in favour of the tenants treating them as weaker sections of the society requiring legislative protection against exploitation and unscrupulous devices of greedy landlords. The legislative intent has to be respected by the courts while interpreting the laws. But it is being uncharitable to legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants, go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The legislature is fair to the tenants and to the landlords “both." 12. But it is being uncharitable to legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants, go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The legislature is fair to the tenants and to the landlords “both." 12. The said precedent is entirely on a different set of facts and nothing to do with Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner wanted to place reliance on the portion extracted supra and tried to canvas the point that the rights of a party has to be determined taking into account the date of application. 13. I would like to point out here that the COP was filed undoubtedly during the year 2003, however order was passed by the District Forum on 27. 2005 and as on that date, the law governing execution was only the current Section 25 of the Act, as stated supra. As such, the precedents of the Supreme Court cited are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. However, I would also add one fact that in the very same judgment the Honourable Apex Court candidly and clearly pointed out that subsequent changes and events also could be taken into account in appropriate cases while deciding the matters under the Rent Control Act. In my considered opinion this decision has been cited out of context. 14. In order to buttress and fortify his proposition, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision of this Court reported in TAMIL NADU LAW NOTES JOURNAL 1998 JANUARY PART I. 15. The aforesaid decision also is relating to lease and Rent Control Act and not pertaining to Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. The reasons furnished for not relying on the Honourable Apex Courts decision reported in (2010) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 257 - SPEEDLINE AGENCIES VS. T.STANES AND COMPANY LIMITED, referred to supra, would also be applicable to this decision and no more elaboration in this regard is required. 16. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even though the address of the respondents registered office is at Kilpauk, Chennai, the petitioner herein initiated proceedings by citing as though the address of the respondent was at Coimbatore. 16. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even though the address of the respondents registered office is at Kilpauk, Chennai, the petitioner herein initiated proceedings by citing as though the address of the respondent was at Coimbatore. However, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the agreement emerged between the two would show that the address of the respondent is only at Coimbatore. 17. I would like to point out that while passing this order, this Court is not concerned with those details at all and simply because both the learned advocates requested their submissions are recorded here and it is for the parties to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum. 18. Accordingly, the earlier order dated 8. 2010 passed in this C.R.P.No.1418 of 2010 is recalled and the present order shall hold good.