Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the revision petitioner.
This is a revision petition against the order sheet dated 14/02/2013 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/12/13, Jeevandhara (A) CHS Ltd. v/s. M/s.Pragati Construction Co. & others; by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban at Bandra, Mumbai. It appears from the factual statement recorded in the order sheet that it was a date for receiving evidence under section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from both the parties. On that date complainant submitted on record his affidavit. However, revisionist/opponent instead of filing evidence affidavit, filed one application taking objection about the maintainability of the complaint and insisted that it be decided as a preliminary objection.
The forum found that such objection cannot be decided at that particular stage of consumer complaint as a preliminary objection. Rightly it was observed that provisions of section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are not applicable. It was further observed in the said order sheet that the matter was adjourned to 25/04/2013 for receiving evidence affidavit on behalf of the opponents as well as for filing reply by the complainant to the application of the opponent. This clearly indicates that no order was passed rejecting the application for preliminary objection, supra. Therefore, submission of the revisionist that his application was rejected will not sustain. Under the circumstances, there is no order which could be challenged in revision. Revision per se is not maintainable. Ld.counsel for the revisionist tried to submit that it is a case of non exercise of the jurisdiction by the forum as revealed from the order sheet dated 14/02/2013. In the circumstances referred earlier, we find that this submission is also devoid of any substance.
Ld.counsel for the revisionist also referred to us to the objection that the complaint is vitiated for non compliance of the provisions of section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, since that issue is also raised in the written version by the opponent as submitted at bar, it could be dealt with properly at the appropriate stage.
For the reasons stated earlier, the revision petition is not admitted and stands disposed off, accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 10th May, 2013.
