Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the OP.

2.        The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed directing the OPs not to seize/repossess the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD-16D-2449 until further orders without considering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.  He further submitted that the interim order can be only effective for a period of 45 days but not until further orders. Pending this revision the petitioners have already moved the District Forum for hearing on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction as the cost of the vehicle is more than Rs.20.00 lacs.

3.        Learned counsel for the OP does not dispute the legal provision but submit that there should be hearing on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction before the learned District Forum.

4.        In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, we deem it proper to quash the interim order and direct the learned District Forum to hear the petitioner on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction they have and after disposal of issue on  maintainability, they would proceed with the merit of the case if found it is maintainable. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 8.7.2020 to receive further instruction form it.

5.        In the result, the interim order is set aside and the learned District forum is directed to dispose of the consumer complaint as per the observations made above.