The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Ltd. defined the scope of §13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that the provision which lays down the timeline for filing of a reply by the opposite party is mandatory in nature. Prior to this ruling, the conflicting decisions in this regard led to immense delay in adjudication of consumer disputes at the district level, with certain cases reaching the Supreme Court at the interim stages itself. We argue that the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Ltd., has ended a decade and a half of humpty dumpty jurisprudence on the nature of §13(2)(a). We also argue that this decision will lead to a speedy disposal of consumer cases, and consumers will no longer have to rush to multiple forums at the interim stage itself.