Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is present.

Though notice against the OP/complainant has been made sufficient, none has appeared on behalf of the OP.

In this revision petition prayer has been made by the revision petitioner to set aside interim order dated 2.1.2019 passed in C.D.Case No. 235 of 2018 by the learned  District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar by which ex parte interim order dated 19.11.2018 was extended till 2.1.2019.

The revision petitioner is the OP No.2 whereas the OP in this revision petition is the complainant before the learned District Forum.

Heard.

It is contended that by order 10.11.2018 ex parte order directing the petitioner not to repossess the equipment/vehicle till 10.12.2018, the revision petitioner  appeared and filed show cause objecting to the interim application. The C.D.Case was posted to 2.1.2019 for hearing of the interim application. By the impugned order, the interim order was again extended till 22.1.2019 in violation of mandate under Regulation 17 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

It is argued that by order dated 2.1.2019, C.D.Case was adjourned due to sad demise of Hon’ble Justice K.P.Mohapatra, the Former Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa mechanically to 22.1.2019.

It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in passing the impugned ex parte order the learned District Forum grossly violated the mandate of provision under section 13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with  17 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 which cast mandate  the District Forum to hear and dispose of objection to an interim application within 45 days failing which the ex parte interim order stands automatically vacated.

We have perused the copies of the orders dated 19.11.2018, 10.12.2018 and 2.1.2019.

On  perusal of the orders, it is apparent that while passing the ex-parte interim order on 19.11.2018, the revision petitioner was directed to file objection to the interim application. In such circumstances, we find force on the contention that the attempt made by the learned District Forum for keeping the ex parte order alive beyond the period of 45 days is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.

Revision petition is allowed.