Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is present.

None appears on behalf of the OP.

It appears that earlier on 2.7.2019 and 27.6.2019 also, none appeared on behalf of the OP. In such circumstances on the request of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

In this revision petition, revision petitioner has made prayer to set aside order dated 22.1.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar  in CD Case No. 317 of 2018.

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

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce impugned order dated 22.1,2019 as well as order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the learned District Forum which reads as follows:-

“Order No.4 dated 22.01.2019

Advocate for complainant is present and files petition for extension of interim order. Advocate Sri Bighnaraj Panda has filed power of OPs along with written version and show cause to the interim appellation. Copy not served. Put up on 18.02.19 for hearing on petition filed U/s 13-3(B) of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant.

The interim order passed earlier shall continue.

Order No.5 dated 18.02.2019

Advocate for OPs is present and files hazira but the complainant is absent on calls and no steps has been filed on his behalf. However put up on 25.02.19 for hearing on petition filed U/s 13-3(B) of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant.”

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that by order dated 26.12.2018 an ex parte interim order was passed against the financer not to sell the vehicle until further orders and the financer was directed to file show cause on 22.1.2019. As is evident from the impugned order dated 22.1.2019, the revision petitioner appeared before the learned District Forum and filed objection to the interim application. In the presence of learned counsel for the parties, learned District Forum adjourned the case to 18.2.2019 for hearing on the objection. Accordingly, the interim order was directed to continue till the next date.  On 18.2.2019, though learned counsel for the OP was present, complaint was adjourned to 25.2.2019.

It is contended that impugned order dated 22.1.2019 is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to direct extension of interim order dated 22.1.2019 beyond the period of 45 days. In view of Regulation 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the learned District Forum was required to hear and dispose of the objection within 45 days failing which the ex parte interim  order stood automatically vacated. In the present case the ex parte interim order dated 26.12.2018 stood automatically vacated on 9.2.2019.

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order including the order darted 26.12.2018, we find the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to be not unfounded. It is rightly submitted that ex parte interim order dated 26.12.2018 stood automatically vacated on expiry of 45 days. Presumably the learned District Forum has not directed continuance of the interim order in the order dated 18.2.2019 keeping in view that the ex parte interim order was no longer available to be directed to continue on that date.

In the above view of the matter, revision petition is allowed to the extent that the direction of the learned District Forum for continuance of the impugned order beyond 45 days is set aside.