This appeal is filed by the original opposite party against the order dtd.15.02.20011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Buldhana, whereby the Forum below pleased to dismiss the prayers of the appellant that the preliminary issues be framed and decided first before disposing of the main complaint.

1.      Complaint was filed by Gokulchand Govind Sanand for recovery of certain amount given by the complainant to the o.p., on Dharvar Chitthi. Since that amount was not paid by the o.p. the complainant filed the complaints vide Nos.185/2010 & 186/2010 before the Forum. O.p. appeared before the Forum in response to the notice and filed written version.  But thereafter, appellant – o.p. moved an application before the Forum with a request that the preliminary issues raised by him, be framed and decided first and then to dispose of the complaint. But the application of o.p. came to be rejected by the Forum.  Aggrieved by the said order, original o.p. has filed this appeal.

2.      We heard the submissions of Adv. Mr Abhijeet Deshpande for the appellant and Adv. MR J B Gandhi for the respondent.

3.      We asked the advocate for the appellant that whether appeal u/s 15 of CPA 1986 is tenable in law in view of the order passed by the Forum on the interim application presented by him.  However, counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the judgement of our High Court, reported in 2005 (3) Mh.L.J.- 671 – Virumal Ladharam Rajani Vs. Shataayu Hospital & Research Centre & Ors. wherein it is clearly laid down that appeal can be filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act against any order passed by District Consumer Forum, if said order is finally affecting the rights of the parties to any proceeding.

4.      Relying on this ruling cited by the advocate of the appellant, we are inclined to entertain these appeals on the merits. 

5.      The preliminary objections were taken on the grounds that the Dharvar Chitthi produced by the complainant / respondent was forged one.  In fact it is the contention of the appellant that he had given blank cheques to one Shri Sunil Hiralal Mal, who was local property broker of Khamgaon and with the help of that person, the complainant had created a forged Dharvar Chitthi for the amount in question to bring legal action in District Forum. 

6.      Second objection of the appellant was that there are complicated questions of law and facts and it is desirable to frame and decide the preliminary issues first and then decide the main complaint on merit.

7.      However, the Forum in its six paged order, has rightly observed that since the parties have already filed necessary documents and still they are allowed to file additional documents, if they feel necessary, the Forum can decide all the preliminary issues raised by the appellant / o.p. while disposing of the complaint finally by its judgment.

8.      What is pertinent to note the fact is that the Civil Procedure Code is not completely and totally applicable to the proceedings under CPA 1986. The only those provisions of CPC applicable to the proceedings taken under the Consumer Protection Act, which are mentioned u/s 13(5) to 13(7) of Consumer Protection Act.  Other than these provisions rest of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to consumer proceedings. In the circumstances, the preliminary issues raised and pressed by the counsel of the appellant before the District Forum has rightly rejected observing inter-alia, that Forum would decide all these issues while disposing of the main complaint.  The complaint is required to dispose of within 90 days and if such latitude is given to the parties, then within the period of 90 days no complaint would be likely to be disposed of.  For this reason, the preliminary issues, raised by the appellant, were turned down by the Forum.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant cited the ruling of National Commission reported in II(2002) CPJ 94 (NC) – Khivraj Motors Vs. V. Chandrababu & Anr.  wherein it is held that the dismissal of the application, preferred by the Revision Petitioner in the Commission for permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal, was erroneously dismissed by the State Commission, holding that the provisions of CPC are not applicable.  What is decided by the National Commission in this ratio is simply the fact that at the appellate stage additional evidence can be allowed to be taken in a given appeal.  But in so many words it is not clearly mentioned that whole of the provisions of Civil Procedure code is applicable to the proceedings taken under the CPA.  So this ruling is of no help to appellant to buttress his arguments.

10.    Hence, we find that the impugned order passed by the Forum below, is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Commission exercising Appellate powers. In the result, we pass following order:-

ORDER

1.      The appeal is dismissed.

2.      No order as to costs.

3.      Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 08.04.2011.