Heard Mr R.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the OP has purchased   a Tata Tipper  bearing Registration No.OD-16D 8070  by incurring loan from the petitioner amounting to Rs.28,42,872/- on 31.1.2018. It was agreed between the parties to pay the loan on instalment basis. Since the OP did not pay the instalment, the petitioner repossessed the vehicle. Challenging the repossession, OP filed C.C.No. 36 of 2020 before the learned District Forum, Sundargarh and that case were challenged by the petitioner before this Commission in RP No. 22 of 2020. This Commission intervened the matter and directed the learned District Forum by its order dated 19.6.2020 to hear the case first on the point of maintainability. After receipt of the order of this Commission, the complainant did not press the complaint.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the first complaint was not pressed by the complainant, he filed the second complaint out of which the present revision arises. He submitted that they have filed show cause challenging the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground of jurisdiction, and also the interim order passed by the arbitrator in arbitration proceeding to repossess the vehicle. Learned District Forum without hearing on the maintainability of the complaint passed the impugned order insisting the petitioner to release the vehicle. So, he challenged the said impugned order stating that the learned District Forum must hear on the maintainability of the case first as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order and to pass appropriate order.

4.      Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

5.      On perusal of the complaint, it appears that this is a second complaint on the self same cause of action. However, when there is challenge on the maintainability of the complaint by the petitioner, the interim impugned order must disclose about the same. Without disclosing the maintainability of the complaint, passing of the interim order per se illegal. There is no urgent situation for passing the impugned order without disclosing the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, without going to the merit of the case, this revision is disposed of with a direction to the learned District Forum to hear the matter on the maintainability of the complaint by giving opportunity to both the parties within 30 days of production of this order and . thereafter, decide the interim application, if necessary.

6.      In view of the above, the interim order stands set aside. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Free copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner to produce the same before the learned District Forum on 7.6.2021.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.