- (1.) Heard Mr Shakti Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) By challenging the orders dated 9th of November, 2009 as well as 11th of January,2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (I), Lucknow, Opposite Party No. 1, in Complaint Case No. 1117 of 2009, in fact, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the complaint itself being without jurisdiction.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding of the complaint has arisen out of notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as Securitisation Act). The respondent instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuing directions to return his documents as well as the papers of the agreement as he has cleared whole dues, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that still there are huge dues against the petitioner for payment. Thus, he submits that the respondent's complaint is based on concealment of fact. The petitioner also raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), but the District Forum overruled the objection and passed the interim order on 9.11.2009, restraining the opposite parties not to dispossess the complainant from the house in dispute. The said order is under challenge in the instant writ petition.;