Heard Mr. A. Kakati, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner. As per order dated 26-07-2022, on the basis of track consignment report against the notice issued to the sole opposite party, it was observed that the consignment was dispatched from Bidyapara S.O. for delivery. Accordingly, presumption was drawn that notice was duly served on the sole opposite party on 9-7-2022 itself. However, as there is no representation on behalf of the sole opposite party, matter is taken up ex-parte against the sole opposite party for its disposal today.

              This is an application under Section 17(1)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 22-05-2019 and 26-06-2019 passed by the learned District Commission, Dhubri, in Complaint No. 04/2018. The complainant initiated the said complaint No. 04/2018, whereafter upon its admission, notice was issued to the present revision petitioner impleaded as opposite party. Thereafter, the present revision petitioner filed an application challenging the maintainability of the case which was fixed for objection by the opposite party/complainant on 22-05-2019. Vide order dated 22-05-2019, the learned Commission below decided to keep the issue of jurisdiction open and proceeded with the case. Accordingly, on 26-6-2019 the matter was fixed for filing of written version by the present revision petitioner. On 26-06-2019, the counsel for the present petitioner filed a petition seeking extension of time for filing of written version. The learned Commission below vide the said order dated 26-06-2019, impugned in this revision petition, observed that as the present revision petitioner as opposite party, failed to submit its written version within the stipulated time, so the petition seeking another date for filing of written version was rejected. However, the learned Commission below granted the opportunity to contest the claim by the revision petitioner only in the point of law point. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence by the complainant side.

                It is submitted by Mr. Kakati that a duty is cast on the learned Commission below at first to decide the issue of jurisdiction being raised by the opposite party therein. As the learned Commission below vide order dated 22-05-2019 without staying the proceeding fixed the matter for filing of written version, as such, both the orders dated 22-05-2019 and 26-06-2019 are required to be set-aside and quashed.

               We have given due consideration to the submission made by Mr. Kakati. In our considered opinion, mere filing of an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission cannot be presumed to stay further proceeding unless the learned Commission below is satisfied to stay the same. Moreover, it is a mandate that t he issue of jurisdiction is required to be raised at the very first stage. But in the present case, the learned Commission below vide order dated 22-05-2019 without entering into the merit of the jurisdictional point kept it open to be taken up belatedly and decided to proceed with the case, thereby fixing 26-06-2019 for filing of written version. On the next date fixed, the present revision petitioner failed to file written version, as such, referring to the stipulated time prescribed under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. maximum 45 days from the date of admission of the complaint, rejected the prayer for extension of further time for filing of written version. In a Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose reported in (2020) 5 SCC 737, the Constitutional Bench held that unless the opposite party in a complaint case succeeds in showing that the complaint petition is devoid of any annexure which the complainant has relied, forming part of the record, the time period of 45 days cannot be extended. Beyond the said ground the said period cannot be extended considering the object of the Act that every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible with an endevour to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party.

               However, vide order dated 26-06-2019 opportunity was granted to the revision petitioner to contest the case on law point. In our considered view the issue of jurisdiction raised by the present revision petitioner before the learned Commission below, cannot be held to be a pure  question of law and as such, in terms of order dated 22-05-2022 we accordingly direct the learned Commission below to consider the issue of jurisdiction at the relevant stage. With the said observation we do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

                The petitioner shall appear on the next date fixed by the learned Commission below.