Heard  learned counsel for the petitioner. True copy of the  impugned order  is filed.  Defect is removed.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Commission has passed exparte impugned order to release the vehicle subject to deposit of one EMI and at the same time notice was issued to the O.P. He  also  filed written version stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable  as the learned arbitrator has passed the order before the complaint is filed. Without hearing on the maintainability of the complaint, the Learned District Commission has proceeded with the execution case to execute the interim impugned order.

3.      He submitted that direction may be issued to  the learned District Commission to  hear the maintainability of the complaint at first.

4.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The impugned order was purportedly passed U/S 38(8) of C.P.Act,2019 where under the following direction has been given:-

“xxx   xxx   xxx

Heard the advocate for the complainant exparte. Submission appears to be just and reasonable supported with affidavit. Hence considering, the circumstances, issue  notice to the opposite parties  to file objection if any but in the mean time the opposite parties are directed to release the asset ( vehicle) bearing Regd.No.OD-29-E-1065 of the complainant immediately on receipt of one EMIs from the complainant and not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till dt.10.10.2022.”

5.     The aforesaid ex parte order was passed purported only u/s 38(8) of the Consumer  Protection Act, 2019 (Hereinafter called “the Act”). But it is submitted that opportunity was not given to the O.Ps of being heard on the maintainability of the complaint. It is well settled in law that the maintainability of the complaint should be heard first, then on merit. The learned District Commission has not applied its judicial mind to the fact that petition is filed to hear maintainability of complaint. First it should hear the matter on maintainability, then proceed with the execution case.

6.      Hence, we are of the view that the Learned District Commission should hear the complaint on its maintainability first by giving opportunity to both parties  and should not proceed with the  execution  case till disposal of petition on maintainability . It is also here by directed to the Learned District Commission to conclude the hearing on the maintainability at first and pass the speaking order within 30 days on the date of receipt of this order and till such disposal execution petition in E.A. 37 of 2022 is stayed. The complainant is directed to file the copy of this order before the learned District Commission on 15.12.2022 to receive further instruction form it.

7.      The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.