Learned counsel for the revision petitioners is present.

          Notice was issued to the OP by regd. post with AD on 2.5.2019. SR is not back. Since 30 days have elapsed, notice against the OP is held to be sufficient.

          On the request of learned counsel for the revision petitioners the revision petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of hearing on admission.

          It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner/financer by way of filing this revision has not only challenged the legality of ex party interim order dated 16.4.2019 passed by the learned District Forum,, Sundargarh – II, Rourkela in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2019 arising out of CC No. 57 of 2019 but also the revision petitioners assailing the maintainability of the complaint petition itself.

         Referring to the copy of the complaint petition filed along with the revision petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the complainant has not disputed repossession of the vehicle by the revision petitioners/financer. In the complaint prayer of the complainant is to direct the revision petitioners not to dispose of the vehicle and to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant.

        It is further contended that complainant availed loan of Rs.30,22,865/- for purchasing a Tipper. The cost of the Tipper is more than Rs.33.00 lacs. In  such circumstances, in view of principle laid down in the decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 others vrs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 1 (2017)CPJ I (NC)  the District Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

         It is  also contended that the complaint was filed in the month of April, 2019. Prior to the filing of the complaint, in connection with the dispute arising out of  the agreement an arbitral award has been passed on 25.1.2019. Referring to the copy of the award it is contended that the financed vehicle was repossessed pursuant to the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

        Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioners raises vital  issues with regard to maintainability of the complaint petition, it appears from the impugned order that the revision petitioners were directed to appear before the District Forum on 17.5.2019 and file written version as well as objection to the interim application. Admittedly, the revision petitioners have not filed any objection to the interim application assailing the maintainability of the complaint petition. They have chosen to file this revision.

        In the aforesaid circumstances, revision petition is disposed of directing the revision petitioners to file objection to the interim application assailing the maintainability of the complaint petition within a period of 15 days from today, on receipt of which the learned District Forum shall proceed to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners with regard to maintainability of the complaint within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the objection.

        Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the revision petitioners undertake to file certified copy of this order before the learned District Forum along with the objection within a week.

       The impugned ex parte interim order dated 16.4.2019 shall remain suspended till disposal of the interim application in accordance with directions made above.