The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and that the proceedings were not barred by limitation. The court also emphasized the importance of following the proper procedure in passing orders.

ORDER

P. B Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member

1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon in proceeding under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act bearing E. A. Nos. 165/17,131/ 17,156/17,157/15,106/17 on the applications moved by accused challenging jurisdiction, limitation and procedure of the said proceedings and thereby rejecting the applications these revisions have been preferred by original respondent-accused.

2. Facts necessary for deciding these revisions are as under:

Original complainant-present respondents filed consumer complaints against the revision petitioners before District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon. Those complaints were partly allowed. However, those orders were not complied by the opposite parties in those matters. That is why proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act were initiated by the original complainants. Revision petitioners appeared in those proceedings as accused. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused in some of the proceedings moved applications challenging jurisdiction, limitation and procedure in the said proceedings and contended that proceedings be quashed. Dist. Consumer Forum after bearing both the parties rejected the applications. Thoseordershavebeenchallenged in R. P. Nos. 199, 209 to 212/2017.

3. In Revision Petition Nos. 209/2017 and 212/2017 the accused has not moved an application as referred above. Order of issuance of process was passed against accused and revision petitioners have challenged in these two revision petitions the order of issue of process.

4. Learned Advocate for revision petitioners has argued that Dist. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution applications and that those applications were moved after period of limitation and proper procedure was not followed as given in the Act and hence orders under revisions are incorrect, illegal and improper. Hence revisions be allowed and orders under challenge be quashed and set aside.

5. Adv. Mr. Hemant Bhangale appeared in revision petition No. 199/2017 only for respondent and opposed the revision petition and supported the order under challenge. In other matters nobody is present today for respondents.

6. Considering submission made before us, considering record and scope of the revision petitions following joints arise for our determination and our findings there are on noted against them for the reasons given below.

REASONS POINT NO. 1:

7. Learned Advocate for the revision petitioners has submitted that District Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the execucion application. As per Rule 6(6) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules 2000. President of Dist. Consumer Forum after receipt of execution application has to forward it to Civil Court for necessary execution. It was submitted that in view of that rule it was necessary for Dist. Consumer Forum to forward the proceedings to the Civil Court for further proceeding. However, hear Dist. Consumer Forum entertained the proceedings and passed orders, specially issue of process orders and that is why those orders are without jurisdiction. After going through the relevant rule i. e. Rule 6(6) which reads as under:

"The President of the District Forum shall, after receipt of the execution application of the judgment forward the same to the Civi