Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. M. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party No. 1.

            The present revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C. 49/2021 pending before the learned District Commission, Kamrup at Guwahati which was initiated by the opposite parties as complainants. Upon issuance of notice, the present petitioners as opposite parties filed its written version in the said complaint proceeding. On receipt of the said copy of written version, the opposite party/complainant filed an application before the learned Commission below seeking leave to file objection against the written version of the present revision petitioner. That petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 14-03-2022. It is submitted by Mr. Khound that the learned Commission below applied its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order beyond the scope stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as such, there is jurisdictional error on the part of the learned Commission below. Mr. Baruah, on the other hand, fairly submits that he may be given liberty to withdraw the said application filed by the opposite party/complainant on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

            We have given due consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel. On perusal of Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, prescribing the procedure of admission of the complaint to be followed by the learned District Commission, sub-section 3(b) of Section 38 of the said Act, 2019 specifically provides that the opposite party on receipt of a copy of the complaint is entitled to deny or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint and thereafter the Commission is directed to proceed to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of the evidence brought to the notice by the complainant and the opposite party, if the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. From the said provision it is apparent that there is no scope for filing of written objection against written version in a complaint case before the learned Commission below. It is mandated that immediately thereafter after denial of the allegations, learned Commission below is authorised to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence. Accordingly, a duty was cast on the learned Commission below to dismiss the application filed by the complainant/opposite party and the impugned order is beyond the scope of Section 38 sub-section 3(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for which we are compelled to set-aside the impugned order dated 14-03-2022 with a further direction to the learned Commission below to direct the complainant to file their evidence and proceed as per law.

            It is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 impleaded in this application who was impleaded as opposite party No. 3 in the complaint case No. 49/2021, is yet to file written version. Considering the provision under the Act of 2019, it is for the learned Commission below to pass appropriate order and proceed with the matter with an intent to dispose of the same at the earliest.

            This revision petition is allowed and disposed of.