Heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner.

                                    This revision petition is filed against the impugned order dated 12-5-2022 passed by the leaned District Commission, Tinsukia, in Consumer Protection Case No. 24/2017. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the opposite party/complainant filed two applications i.e. petition No. 258/2019 and 259/2019 out of which petition No. 258/2019 was filed by the complainant/opposite party under Section 13(4)(IV) of the C.P. Act, for a direction to the present petitioner/opposite party to produce the admitted signature and handwriting of the complainant along with credit card brochure cum application form No. CC04005014 for sending the same to the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara at Guwahati. In the pleading of the complaint petition, this stand was taken by the complainant/opposite party that he did not put his signature in the credit card brochure cum application form No. CC04005014. There was a total denial in respect of the statement by the complainant/opposite party in the complaint petition by the present petitioner. Considering the denial on the part of the present revision petitioner/opposite party, the learned Commission below, Tinsukia, opined for obtaining an opinion of a handwriting expert and as a result, the prayer made in the petition No. 258/2019 was allowed, directing the present revision petitioner to produce the original of the credit card brochure cum application form No. CC04005014 before the Commission for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara at Guwahati and with a specific direction to the present petitioner, the learned Commission below fixed 21-12-2021 as the date for production of the said documents.

                        We are of the opinion that as against the petition No. 258/2019, the revision petitioner again filed a petition No. 143 praying for time to file objection as the bank was busy with internal audit. Rejecting the said prayer, the following impugned order extracted below was passed by the learned Commission below on 12-05-2022.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant present. O.P. again filed petition No. 143 praying for time to file objection, since the bank is busy with internal audit.

The case is of 2017 and it seems that the HDFC Bank is taking time day by day. Vide order dated 18-11-2021, the O.P. was directed to comply with the direction given in the order, but till date, nothing was happened. Hence, Rs. 5000/- cost is to be paid by the HDFC Bank within one month to the complainant, failing which the Branch Manager or Head of the HDFC Bank, Tinsukia Branch will face criminal action from the Commission.

            Fix 17-06-2022 for objection and cost.

The aforesaid order is put under challenge in this revision petition. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that the impugned order is somehow vague in as much as, if Rs. 5000/- cost is to be paid by the HDFC Bank within one month to the complainant, then prima-facie, the documents are not required to be produced. On the other hand, if the said amount of Rs. 5000/- is not paid, the learned Commission directed that the Branch Manager or the Head of HDFC Bank, Tinsukia Branch, would face criminal action from the Commission. Also the learned Commission fixed 17-06-2022 for objection. Under such circumstances, Mr. Sharma, sought interference in the impugned order dated 12-5-2022.

We have given due consideration to the submission made by Mr. Sharma and are of the opinion that the impugned order seems to be for enforcement of the direction passed on 18-11-2021 while disposing of the petition No. 258/2019 and 259/2019. On the other hand if we consider the impugned order fixing 17-6-2022 for objection it gives us an impression that the order dated 18-11-2021 is going to be reopened by the leaned Commission below. On a specific query to Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, for the revision petitioner, he fairly submits that as per instruction from the petitioner bank, it is ready to produce the documents directed to be produced vide order dated 18-11-2021. Under such circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the intent of the learned Commission below was to enforce the order dated 18-11-2021, purportedly with an object to dispose of the complainant petition at the earliest. In view of the same, if the said documents are produced within a fixed time period, there is no requirement for objection by the present revision petitioner nor the learned Commission below is required to hear as against the objection directed to be filed by the present revision petitioner in the impugned order dated 12-5-2022. Accordingly, we find that the learned Commission below exercised its jurisdiction in an improper way and considering the assurance made by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, for the revision petitioner, we hereby set-aside the order dated 12-05-2022 with a further direction to the petitioner to produce the documents directed to be produced by the learned Commission below vide order dated 18-11-2021 within a period of 45 days from today, before the District Commission, Tinsukia as the same is required to be collected from the Mumbai Office of the revision petitioner.. Failure on the part of the revision petitioner to produce the said documents, would entail appropriate order to be passed by the learned Commission below.

                                   Considering the matter involved in  this revision petition and in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the original complaint, we dispose of the same today itself without issuing notice to the opposite party/complainant, considering that the matter purely involves wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Commission below.