This petition u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against an order dated 21.01.10 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. C-128/2009. It ..2.. would appear that in a complaint filed by the respondents against the opposite parties, M/s. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd & Ors. alleging deficiency in service in connection with a certain flat, the opposite parties/ builder on being noticed on the complaint filed an application u/s 17 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 raising preliminary objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain and try the complaint on the ground that the flat, in relation to which deficiency was alleged and cause of action is stated to have arisen to the complainant, was situated in a different jurisdiction, i.e, Noida in the State of UP. This was done before filing the response/written version to the complaint on merits. The counsel for the opposite parties/appellants sought the indulgence of the State Commission to decide the said objection contained in the application moved by the opposite parties but the State Commission declined the prayer by holding as under:- “3. The practice in this Commission has through out been, to decide all the contentions of the parties including the question of jurisdiction, but no piecemeal decisions are made. The learned counsel for the OP has not been able to site any case law where issue of jurisdiction may have been decided as a preliminary issued. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide any such procedure. ..3.. 4. OP will, therefore, file reply/written statement to the complaint within four weeks and the question of jurisdiction will be decided along with other controversies.” 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed these proceedings. We have heard Mr. Atul Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant and have considered their respective submissions. On consideration of the matter, we find that the view taken by the State Commission is erroneous because it is settled legal position that whenever any objection in regard to jurisdiction of a Court/Forum, whether about lack of inherent jurisdiction, pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction is raised, the said Court/Forum must answer the same before proceeding with the merits of the case. This is for the obvious reason and with a view to obviate any inconvenience and delay which may occur if at the end after the trial of the matter, the Court/Forum comes to a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to answer the complaint. Accordingly, we would like the State Commission to dispose of the application of the opposite parties/petitioners first before it proceeds to decide the complaint on its merits. ..4.. 3. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the State Commission is called upon to decide the application moved by the petitioners and to answer the question about the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the complaint. We order accordingly. It is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the next date of hearing fixed in matter before the State Commission is 05.07.10. We direct the parties to appear before the State Commission on that date.