THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs.25068 OF 2009 and 27198 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) The Writ petition No.25068 of 2009 is filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the I.A.No.556 of 2009 in un-numbered C.C. on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam and the same may be set aside as illegal and arbitrary, irregular and contrary to the Consumer Protection Act. The Writ petition No.27198 of 2009 is filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the C.C.No.501 of 2009 on the file of District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam and the same may be set aside as illegal and arbitrary, irregular and contrary to the Consumer Protection Act. It is the case of the petitioners that they borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 10.03.2004 and Rs.30,000/- on 29.05.2004 with interest at 24% per annum, from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for developing the business and running the educational institutes and executed two promissory notes in their favour. Subsequently, due to the financial problems, they could not repay the said amounts. In this regard, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed two different complaints with delay condonation petition before the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam against them, which are pending for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 instead of approaching the Civil Court for recovery of money, they have filed complaints before District Consumer Forum and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints for recovery of the money due under the promissory notes as the said promissory notes are barred by limitation. He further pleaded that the numbering of the said complaints and issuing of notice by the forum is illegal. This Court while admitting the writ petition Nos.25068 of 2009 and 27198 of 2009 granted interim stay on 18.11.2009 and 14.12.2009 respectively. The respondents filed vacate stay petitions in both the writ petitions. In the counter, the respondents supported the action of the Forum in numbering the cases and issuance of notices and also stated about the merits of the case. They pleaded that the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and the promissory notes executed by the writ petitioners are not barred by limitation. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the complaints, even without issuing notice, can be rejected by the Forum or not? It is not even the case of the writ petitioners that they have approached the Forum and raised an objection about the jurisdiction of the Forum in entertaining the applications filed before it. In the circumstances, we thought it fit to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the writ petitioners to file a counter-affidavit before the District Forum taking the plea about the jurisdiction. On such counter-affidavit is filed, the District Consumer Forums-I and II, Visakhapatnam are directed to examine the said aspect while proceeding further in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition Nos.25068 and 27198 of 2009 are disposed of. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:24-11-2011 Ksp