Mr. V. Verma, Member—The first mentioned bunch of petitions (Sr. No. 1 to 26) are all complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Shimla Develop-ment Authority relating to the allotment of plots/flats/ independent houses being developed/constructed or in the process of development or construction under the Self Financing or partly Self Financing Schemes undertaken by the said statutory authority in Shimla. The miscellaneous applications from Sr. No. 27 to 34 have been filed under Section 25 and /or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act praying for execution of the order passed in this jurisdiction in favour of the applicants named above against the Shimla Development Authority. In all these cases, objection in regard to the jurisdictional competence of the Commission have been raised on the part of the respondent S.D.A. and decision thereon is insisted upon before the merits of each case are gone into and adjudicated upon by the Commission.

2. In regard to the applications seeking execu-S tion of the orders already passed by this Commission, let it be noted that the Respondent, S.D.A. did not go in appeal against the original orders, compliance where-with is now prayed for through the said applications. (Sr. No. 27 to 34). The learned Counsel for the respondent claims that issue of jurisdiction even if not raised at the initial stage or even if raised and decided against the respondent can still be raised at the stage of execution of a decree if it is shown that it was passed by a Court that lacked inherent jurisdiction. In that context he invited our attention to (1993)(2) SCC 458 (Hira Lal Mool Chand Doshi v. Barote Raman Lal Ranchhaddas (Dead by L. Rs) and to (1993) 2 SCC 507 (Charangi Lal Sirilal Goanka (deceased L. Rs v. Jasjeet Singh & Others). Since these applications have been tagged with original complaints which in any case we are making final orders in regard to the competence of the complainants to maintain complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act, 1986) and about jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain them, we see no particular call to go into the issue spelled out about and accordingly leave that question open to be considered and decided as and when any necessity arises.

3. Likewise, the point as to whether as to whether or not interest can be awarded by the Commission in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1986, we do not consider relevant to the threshold question of jurisdiction presently before us and so leave this too open to be answered at appropriate time.

4. The very first submission made on behalf of the respondent authority is "that the complainants before the Commission are neither 'consumer' nor is the S.D.A. rendering any 'service' as defined in Section 2 of the Act. Stress was laid on an amendment carried out to the definition of 'service' through an Ordinance No. 24 of 1993 whereby "housing construction" as well has been included amongst the various activities and facilities already enumerated therein, in order to press the point that earlier such an activity was outside the scope of the Act. Another point made in centered on Section 17 read in the light of the amendment carried out also per the above Ordinance whereby the minimum monetary jurisidiction of the State Commission has been raised from Rupees one lakh to five lakhs.

5. We do not consider it worth-while to reproduce in verbatim the definition of the terms mentioned above. About the interpretation thereof we would revert if necessary after we have first considered the effect of authorities cited before us which are referred to and discussed thereafter. Has the Commission lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints whose value happens to be less than Rs. 5 lakhs, even though these have been admitted and proceeded with prior to coming to the force of the above law from the 18th June, 1993 ? The question may be discussed although the point obviously does not require any e