Date of filing :10.12.2021 Date of order :04.03.2022 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

REVISION PETITION NO. : 102 OF 2021 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 358 OF 2021 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.

The Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd., (Correct Name:PNB Housing Finance Ltd.), E-1, E-2, E-3, Fourth Floor, Business Centre, Adalat Road, Aurangabad 431 001. …REV.PETITIONER VERSUS

1. Smt. Jayashri W/o Gajanan Pujari, Plot No.47, South City, United Nagar, Beside Chordiya Petrol Pump, Waluj, Aurangabad.

2. Shri.Vaibhav Gajanan Pujari, Plot No.47, South City, United Nagar, Beside Chordiya Petrol Pump, Waluj, Aurangabad.

3. Shri.Vishal Gajanan Pujari, Plot No.47, South City, United Nagar, Beside Chordiya Petrol Pump, Waluj, Aurangabad.

4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

414, ICICI Lombard House, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Mandir Main Gate, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025.

5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Plot No.233, 234, Shri. Swami Samarth Shrushti, Varad Ganesh Mandir Road, Above Karnatak Bank, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad.

CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.P.B.Paithankar for petitioner, Adv. Smt.Kalpana Jakate for respondents 1 to 3, Adv.Shri.R.H.Dahat for respondents 4 & 5.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 04/03/2022)

Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

1. Being aggrieved by the interim order dated 27.10.2021 passed in C.C.No. 358/2021, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition No.102/2021 on 10.12.2021.

2. The revision petitioner was heard on 02.03.2022. Adv.Paithankar argued for petitioner Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. , Adv.Jakate argued for respondent No.1 to 3/org. complainants in CC 358/2021, Adv.R.H.Dahat argued for respondent Nos.4 &5/opponents 2 & 3 in consumer complaint.

3. The learned advocate Shri.Paithankar argued that, respondents/complainants have filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission along with the interim application for stay to the recovery proceeding initiated by the petitioner bank. The District Commission while passing the impugned order directed petitioner bank not to proceed for compulsory recovery and possession. The District Commission in their earlier order stated that with the consent of the parties the application for interim order will be heard at the time of final hearing.

The advocate argued that the consent of the parties does not create jurisdiction to the court for deciding of the litigation. For that he relied on the judgment of Delhi High court in i) Harshad Chimanlal Modi –Vs- D.L.F. Universal Ltd. in C.R.No. 506/1998 dt.01/11/1999 [1999 Legal Eagle (DEL) 973] wherein it is held by Hon’ble Lordship that by argument alone jurisdiction could not be created on any court.

ii) Harshad Chimanlal Modi –Vs- D.L.F. Universal Ltd. in C.A. No.2726/2000 dt.26.09.2005 [2005 Legal Eagle (SC) 766] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, “ In our opinion the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the parties had agreed that Delhi Court alone had jurisdiction in the matters arising out of the transaction has also no force. Such a provision, in our opinion, would apply to those cases where two or more courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit and the parties have agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of one court”.

The District Commission passed interim order without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner. The impugned interim order passed behind back of the petitioner. The order is passed on application by taking the case on board. The order is passed by the District Commission when the District Commission is without jurisdiction on legal aspects. The complainants have obtained the loan from petitioner Finance Bank and they are in default for payments. The petitioner has initiated recovery action under the provisions of SURFAESI ACT . It is settled position of law that the courts are not justified to pass the or