Tapash Mookherjee, J.

1. An order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C. case No. R.C./135/2009 is under challenge in the present Revisional application.

2. The facts leading to the present revisional application, in short, may be summarized as follows:-

3. The present petitioner having its business at Howrah supplied a Furnace Transformer to the Opposite Party for installation in the factory of the Opposite Party at a place in the District of Bankura. The said Transformer was installed in the factory of the Opposite Party on 18.04.2007. Subsequently the Opposite Party submitted a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum), Bankura, being registered as complaint case No. 29/2008 and alleged therein that there was manufacturing defects in the Transformer which was not removed in spite of repeated requests. With such allegations, the Opposite Party prayed for different reliefs including return of the purchase money along with interest and compensations for the losses suffered by the Opposite Party due to supply of such defective machine.

4. The present petitioner appeared before the District Forum at Bankura and challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum, under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After hearing both the parties the District Forum came to the conclusion that it had the jurisdiction to decide the case and as such rejected the aforesaid application of the present petitioner. The present petitioner challenged the said order of the District Forum under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C. O. No. 2628/2009. The said application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was rejected with a liberty to the present petitioner to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, State Commission), for redressal. A revisional application being S. C. case No. R. C. /135/2009 was filled before the State Commission thereafter. The State Commission refused to interfere with the order of the District Forum and clarified that the question of jurisdiction should be decided at the time of final disposal of the complaint case before the District Forum. Being aggrieved by such order the Opposite Party in the District Forum filed the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the District Forum, Bankura had no jurisdiction to entertain the case as the parties by mutual agreement fixed the territorial jurisdiction of Howrah Court to resolve any dispute, as it appears from the challan of the goods consigned (Annexure A 2) and tax invoice cum excise invoice. His next contention was that whenever the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised in any Suit or case, as the case may be, then such a question of jurisdiction has to be decided at first as stated in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has also referred to Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the point, and according to him the learned State Commission committed error in law by directing the District Forum to decide the issue at the time of final disposal of the case. Mr Majumder further argued that since the jurisdictional error has been raised in the case the High Court has the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to decide the same even though there is alternative forum in the Consumer Protection Act to resolve such a dispute. Mr Majumder has cited the following decisions in his support. 1) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2154 (New Moga Transport Company- versus- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others), 2) AIR 1981 Delhi 217 (Dr. Gurdit Singh Bajaj- versus Ramesh Chandra), 3) AIR 2014Calcutta 220 (Smt. Kanak Bala Mondal & others versus Smt. Anjali Karmakar), 4) AIR 1999 Calcutta 29 (Ratanlal Nahata and etc.- versus Nandita Bose and etc.), 5) AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1213 (Devi Das versus Mohan Lal) and 6) AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786 (Shah Babulal Khimji versus Jayaben D. Kania and another).

6. On the other hand Mr Rai appearing for the Opposite Party submitted that since the Consumer Protection Act is a special statute the procedures prescribed in it should get precedence over the provisions in Civil Procedure Code especially when there is a specific provision in the Consumer Protection Act in Section 13 (4) relating to the applicability of the provisions in Civil Procedure Code. He further submitted that Consumer Protection Act itself provides for remedy for error, if any, committed by a District Forum and hence the High Court should not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. His further contention was that a dispute in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of a Court has to be raised at the earliest opportunity as stated in Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code but the said provision does not mandate that any dispute regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Court has to be always decided as a preliminary issue before deciding the merits of the case. Mr Rai submitted further that the question of restrictive jurisdiction on consent by the parties, if any, and other issues involved in the case were all required to be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties. So, the learned State Commission rightly directed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the time of final hearing of the case before the District Forum. Mr Rai has also referred to the following decisions in his support 1) (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 539 [LQ/SC/2011/1035] (Ethiopian Airlines versus Ganesh Narain Saboo), 2) (2012) 8 SCC 524 [LQ/SC/2012/638] (Cicily Kallarackal versus Vehicle Factory).

7. It is true that in the challan of the delivery of the goods in question there is a note all subject to Howrah jurisdiction. A similar note is found also at the bottom of the Tax Invoice - cum- Excise Invoice (Annexure- A 2). But what is the legal effect of such notes in the documents of the petitioner cannot be conclusively decided without considering the evidence of the parties on the point. So, the decision in New Moga Transport Companys case (supra) cannot be applied at this stage of the case.

8. In the Ethiopian Air Lines case (supra) it has been clearly laid down that the Civil Procedure Code has a very limited application, so far as a Suit under the provisions in Consumer Protection Act is concerned, as the provisions in Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly specifies the matters which are to be governed by the provisions in Civil Procedure Code. It has been further held in that case that the Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and as the provision in Section 13 (4) of the Act clearly specifies the subjects on which the provisions in Civil Procedure Code is applicable, it is deemed that the legislator have intentionally excluded all other provisions of Civil Procedure Code from their applications in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. It is, therefore, clear that the provision in Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in a case under the Consumer Protection Act. That apart, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code says that any objection as to the place of suing has to be raised in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, but it does not say that such a point of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided at first before going into the merit of the case. The contention of Mr Majumder on the point is not, therefore, acceptable.

9. The subject matter of the cases reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786 (supra) and AIR 1999 Calcutta 29 (supra), being entirely different, those decisions are of no help to the petitioners case. Similarly in the case reported in AIR 1981 Delhi 217, the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) being silent on the point, in issue, some provisions in Civil Procedure Code were held to be applicable in that case. But, as discussed earlier, the Consumer Protection Act is not silent on the point of extent of application of Civil Procedure Code in a proceeding under it. So, the said decision has not also any application in this case. In the case in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1213 (supra), the Suit was for eviction of a tenant and as such the said decision has no relevancy in the present case.

10. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly says that any person aggrieved by an order, passed by the State Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a prescribed period. A question, therefore, arises whether in spite of such an alternate Forum the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr Majumder has argued on the point that the State Commission has not decided any merit of the case by the impugned order and that the point involved in this Revisional Application is a point of jurisdiction which is purely a question of law and as such the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to resolve the issue. On the other hand Mr Rai emphatically argued that the High Court should never exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in such a case as there is an alternative and effective Forum for it. It should be noted that earlier in this case, the order of the District Forum was challenged in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it was held in thatRevisional Application (C.O. of 2628 of 2009) that since a specific provision of appeal is there in the Consumer Protection Act, such a Revisional Application in the High Court is not maintainable.

11. In Cicily Kallarackals case (supra) it has been laid down by the Apex Court that where there is a provision of statutory appeal to a higher Forum in any special law, exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is not desirable. In view of such decision of the Honble Apex Court the decision of a Single Bench of this Court reported in AIR 2014 Calcutta 220 (supra) is of no help for the petitioner and on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the present Revisional Application should not be entertained by this Court, especially when, there is a provision of statutory appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act against any order passed by the State Commission.

12. It should be further noted that the learned State Commission in its order impugned has not decided any issue on merit and it has directed the District Forum to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction at the time of final disposal of the complaint case and such the order has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner calling for any interference by this Court.

13. So, from what has been discussed above, it is clear that the present Revisional Application has no merit. Hence the Revisional Application being C.O. No. 1789 of 2010 is hereby dismissed on contest without any order as to costs. The District Forum is to proceed with the case before it, according to the direction of the learned State Commission in its order dated 31st March, 2010.

14. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Counsels for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.