1. Revision petition against District Commission order allowing application for production of documents without hearing petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3149
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S. P. Tavade, President, Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
Ekdanta Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ketan Parab – Respondent
Revision Petition No. RP/25/39
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Poonam Makhijani
For the Respondents: Warunjikar, Kharkar, Thakare
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Poonam Makhijani
For the Respondents: Warunjikar, Kharkar, Thakare
A consumer commission must determine and decide the primary issue of jurisdictional maintainability before proceeding to final arguments on the merits of the complaint.
Headnote:(A) Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Complaint - Determination of primary issues - Where a challenge to the maintainability of a consumer complaint on the grounds of jurisdiction is pending, the primary issue of jurisdiction must be framed and decided before proceeding to final arguments on the merits of the case. (Para 7)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Opportunity of Hearing - Production of Documents - Parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence or file replies to additional documents to ensure a fair adjudication of the maintainability of the complaint. (Para 2, 7)
Issues: Whether the District Commission was correct in proceeding to final arguments without first deciding the pending application regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the point of jurisdiction.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued denial of hearing; respondents contended order was proper and no adverse order was passed. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. District Commission failed to frame primary jurisdiction issue and improperly posted matter for final arguments. (Para 7 )
4. When maintainability on jurisdiction is challenged, the primary issue must be framed and decided before final hearing. (Para 7 )
5. Revision petition partly allowed; impugned order modified directing District Commission to decide maintainability first. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. Must a District Commission frame and decide a jurisdictional issue before proceeding to final hearing?
Yes, when an application challenging maintainability on jurisdiction is raised, the primary issue must be framed and decided first. (Para 7 )
7. Is a revision petition maintainable against an order allowing production of documents without granting a hearing?
Yes, the court entertained the revision petition and found the District Commission's procedure improper, partly allowing the petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 )
Per Hon’ble Shri. Vijay C. Premchandani – Member
1. The present Revision Petition has filed under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 05/03/2025 passed by
Ld. District Commission Central Mumbai.
Facts of the Application :-
2. The Applicant submitted that, there is an application pending in Original Consumer Complaint pertaining to the maintainability of the complaint on the point of jurisdiction. In support of the application the present Petitioner has moved an application for production of documents along with copy of Occupation Certificate dated 08/01/2025 before District Commission. The Ld. District Commission adjourned the matter for filing a reply to the application and for hearing on said application. The Petitioner requested that directions be issued to Respondent no 1 to serve an advance copy of the reply, but Respondent no 1 failed to serve the copy of reply in advance to the present Petitioner and filed its reply before District Commission on 05/03/2025. The advocate for Petitioner requested District Commission to grant time for preparation of arguments on the application. However, the District Commission has allowed the application and orally stated to the advocate of the Petitioner that, arguments were not necessary. The present Petitioner has not given chance for hearing on the application for production of documents and also without issuing any directions to the parties to file their replies to the additional documents or evidence. The District Commission did not clarify whether the additional documents would be treated as additional evidence. Furthermore, the Hon’ble District Commission proceeded with final hearing by concluding the arguments of
3 RP/25/39
the Complainants’ Advocate and listed the matter as part-heard for the arguments of the Petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved with the said order the present Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order of District Commission. It is contended by the Petitioner that, the Petitioner has given last opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of additional documents placed on the record. The impugned order passed by the District Commission is without reason. Therefore, the Petitioner prayed that, the impugned order dated 05/03/2025 passed by the District Commission may modify and allow the Petitioner to file Additional Affidavit in Evidence in
support of additional documents.
4. The notice of petition was issued to Respondents. The Original Complainant appeared and filed its reply. The Respondent no 1 has objected the petition and contended that the impugned order passed by Ld. District Commission is proper as the application for production of documents was allowed. There is no adverse order passed against the Petitioner. The present consumer complaint is pending since long and which seems almost 12 years. The said impugned order is not against the Petitioner. Therefore, the Revision Petition under Section 47(1) (b) in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not maintainable under Law. The Respondent no 1 further prayed
for dismissal of the petition with cost.
5. The Advocate for Respondent no 2 appeared and orally submitted that, they are in the support of present Revision Petitioner hence do not want
to file their reply.
6. Heard both sides advocates. Perused the application and documents along with the Petition and impugned order passed by Ld. District
Commission. We come to conclusion as reasoned below:-
4 RP/25/39
Reasoning: -
7. The admitted fact from the record that, in original consumer complaint the present Revision Petitioner has moved an application to challenge the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of the jurisdiction of the District Commission. It is also admitted fact that, the present Revision Petitioner has moved an application for production of documents as on 08/01/2025 and it is also revealed from the order dated 05/03/2025 of the original consumer complaint that the Respondent has
