V.B. Gupta, J:- This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short 'the State Commission') in ex­ecution proceedings. The operative part of this order read as under:- "Thus the payment ofRs.25,93,7241-and Rs.3,000/- litigation cost be also made to the complainant. By this or­der it is directed that payment of en­tire amount be made by insurance company till 09.12.2010. Thus the probable date of payment is deter­mined as 09.12.2010. In case the pay­ment is made by the insurance com­pany before the probable date 09.12.2010, the deduction @Rs. 75 71 - per day will be made accordingly, but in case of delay in payment, the pay­ment will be made by adding Rs. 757 per day similarly. ORDER The above order will be complied with by the judgment debtor within a pe­riod of one month, otherwise after one month the account of the Divisional Office, Agra of the insurance company will be seized by using the powers un­der the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In these circumstances the banker of the Divisional Office of in­surance company is directed to ensure the payment of entire amount men­tioned in this order to the complain­ant as per order of the Hon'ble Su­preme Court. This case be listed on 25.01.2011 for compliance of order passed in this ex­ecution petition and for further order. In view of the above this execution pe­tition is decided in compliance of or­der and judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 2. Above impugned order was passed in pursuance of order dated 23.7.2009 passed by the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the order of Apex Court read as under:- "On the facts of the case, we uphold the order of the State Commission for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards harass­ment cost. In addition to the princi­pal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the or­der of the State Commission till pay­ment alongwith pendentelite interest on the principal amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of fil­ing of the complaint till that date on which the principal amount was paid to the appellant. We also direct that the aforesaid payment shall be made within two months from today." 3. Before dealing this revision petition, it would be fruitful to narrate the circum­stances in which impugned order was passed. 4. We also direct that the aforesaid payment shall be made within two months from today." 3. Before dealing this revision petition, it would be fruitful to narrate the circum­stances in which impugned order was passed. 4. Respondent/Complainant filed an insurance claim for burbler policy ob­tained by him before the State Commission. Vide order dated 25.11.1998 the State Commission partly allowed the complaint. 5. Aggrieved by order dated 25.11.1998 of the State Commission, both parties, i.e. the petitioner/opposite party as well respondent/complainant, filed separate appeals before this Commission. 6. Vide order dated 10.2.2003. this Commission disposed of the appeal of the petitioner, with certain modifications up­held the order of the State Commission. 7. On the other hand, the appeal of the respondent/complainant was dismissed by this Commission, vide its order dated 18.2.2003. 8. Petitioner did not pursue the mat­ter, further, whereas respondent/complain­ant filed a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.7.2009, as referred to above. 9. Thereafter, petitioner vide its let­ter dated 9.12.2009, sent a cheque of Rs.5,97,706/- (Rupees five lakh ninety seven thousand seven hundred and six only) to­wards full and final payment in pursuance of Apex Court order dated 23.7.2009. 10. Being not satisfied with the ac­tion of the petitioner, respondent/claimant filed an execution application under Sec­tion 25 /27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') to which peti­tioner filed its reply. 11. Vide impugned order, State Com­mission directed the petitioner to make pay­ment as mentioned in the order. 12. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this revision petition. 13. We have heard the learned coun­sel for the petitioner as well as the author­ized representative of the respondent. 14. At the outset, we may point out that no revision petition in the present circumstances lies, since impugned order was passed in the execution proceedings which were initiated under Section 25,27 and27A of the Act and these sections read as under :- "25. Enforcement of orders of the Dis­trict Forum, the State Commission 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 Commission 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) No attachment made under sub­section (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 to 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 arrears of land revenue. 27. Penalties. 27. Penalties. - (1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to com­ply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commis­sion or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thou­sands rupees but which may ex­tend to ten thousand rupees, or with both: (2) Notwithstanding anything con­tained in the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure, 1973, (2 0/T974J, the District Forum or the State Com­mission or the National Commis­sion, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Mag­istrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Com­mission or the National Commis­sion, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magis­trate of the first class for the pur­pose of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. 27A. Appeal against order passed un­der section 27 - (1) Notwithstanding anything con­tained in the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an ap­peal under section 27, both on facts and on law, 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. (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission. (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case maybe, the National Commission: Provided that the State Commis­sion or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days." 15. Section 25 and 27 of the Act have been enacted towards speedy enforcement of the orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. These sec­tions are in the nature of execution pro­ceedings of the orders made by the three Redressal Agencies. While Section 25 of the Act visualizes the enforcement of such orders by a civil process, as if they were a decree or order made by a Court of law, where as, Section 27 of the Act confers a quasi-criminal sanction for their enforce­ment by way of punishment with impris­onment or imposition of monetary penalties. 16. Since, the impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in the execution proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Act, an appeal lies against the impugned order under Section 27A of the Act. 17. When an equally efficacious rem­edy has been provided by way of an ap­peal against the impugned order, present revision petition under these circumstances is not maintainable. 18. Accordingly, present revision pe­tition being legally not maintainable is hereby dismissed. 19. Parties shall bear their own costs.