This Revision Petition has been preferred by M/s Ess Gee Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, has been dismissed and the Order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (2nd), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 389/2015 (78/2014) has been affirmed. I have perused the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the State Commission as also the Order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the District Commission, the grounds taken in the Memo of Revision Petition and the documents filed along with it. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the question of maintainability ought to be decided by the Consumer Fora as a preliminary issue and relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supeme Court as also Order 14 Rule 2(b) CPC, 1908. From a perusal of the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2022, I find that the Written Version filed by the Petitioner herein before the District Commission had not been taken on record as it had been filed beyond the statutory period. Thus, there is no material on record to decide the said issue. Of course, the District Commission has to consider as to whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation or not but that point will be decided by the District Commission at the time of final hearing, which has been affirmed by the State Commission. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. As the Written Version had not been filed by the Petitioner and had not been taken on record and there is no other material except the statutory provisions as to whether the Complaint filed is within limitation or not, which shall be decided by the District Commission at the time of final hearing. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. | 
