Back
RP/102/2021
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.
RP/102/2021
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.
RP/102/2021
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
