29-WP10690-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10690 OF 2026 Platinum Aashiana LLP ...Petitioner Versus Vijay Raghunath Chalke and Ors …Respondents Mr. Manish Gala, a/w Alpa Gala, for the Petitioner. Mr. Nilesh Parte, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Panickar, a/w Vinay Nair and Aayush Yadav, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Y. S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondent- State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 7th August, 2026, whereby the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, has deferred the hearing and decision on an application dated 6th October, 2025, questioning the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission to entertain, try and decide the complaint to the stage of final adjudication. 3. The issue of jurisdiction could not have been relegated to the stage of final adjudication as in the event the Commission 1/3 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.02 10:02:30 +0530 29-WP10690-2026.DOC ultimately finds that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the entire exercise would be rendered futile. It would have been in the fitness of things for the Commission to decide the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in the first instance and then depending on the outcome of the said decision, proceed with the complaint. 4. A grievance was made on behalf of the respondents that, the hearing of the complaint would be unjustifiably delayed if the Commission were to decide the issue of its jurisdiction. 5. The grievance of the respondent can be addressed by directing the Commission to take up the application dated 6th October, 2025 for hearing and final disposal on 7th September, 2026 and decide the same within a time frame. 6. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The petition stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order to the extent the Commission has deferred the decision on its pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint to the final adjudication of the complaint stands quashed and set aside. 2/3 29-WP10690-2026.DOC (iii) The Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, is requested to hear and decide the application dated 6th October, 2025 before finally deciding the complaint. (iv) The parties shall appear before the Commission on 7th September, 2026. (v) The Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, is requested to pass an order in accordance with the law on the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four weeks thereafter. (vi) No separate notice need be issued to any party nor any party shall seek an adjournment before the District Commission for the purpose of hearing of the application dated 6th October, 2026. (vii) It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter, including the challenge to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, and all contentions of all the parties are kept open for consideration of the District Commission. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3