STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
RC No. 116 of 2009
1. Sri Swapan Mukherjee.S/O Late Saibal Mukherjee. 4, Srinath Chakraborty Lane, Kolkata- 700035.2. Sri Aloke Mukherjee.S/O Late Saibal Mukherjee. 4, Srinath Chakraborty Lane. Kolkata- 700035.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Ashish Datta.S/O Late Birendra Chandra Dutta, 36/32, Nim Chand Moitra Street, PO. Alambazar, PS. Baranagar, Kolkata- 700035.2. R. K. Construction. 4/3, Moti lal Mallick Lane, Kolkata- 700035.3. Sri Ranjan Sen.S/O Late Ramkrishna Sen. 4/3, Motilal Mullick Lane. PO. Alambazar, PS. Baranagar, Kolkata- 700035.4. Sri Kashi Nath Paria.S/O Late Jiban Ch. Paria. 207/97, B.T. Road. PO & PS. Baranagar, Kolkata- 700036.5. Sri Tapan Mukherjee.S/O Late Saibal Mukherjee. 4, Srinath chakraborty Lane. Kolkata-700035.6. Smt. Sikha Bhaduri.D/O Late Saibal Mukherjee. W/O Ujjal Bhaduri. 179/19, Gopal Lal Thakur Road. PO. Alam Bazar, PS. Baranagar, Kolkata-700035.7. Smt. Kalyani Halder.D/O Late Saibal Mukherjee. Moitree Mahal. 23, Deshbandhu Road. (East). PO. Alambazar, PS. Baranagar, Kolkata- 700035.
...........Respondent(s)
For the Appellant :
Mr. Somnath Giri., Advocate for
For the Respondent :
Mr. Rajes Biswas. Mr. Avik Kr. Das , Advocate
Dated : 30 Mar 2010
ORDER
No. 6/30.03.2010.
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.
Revision Petitioner through Mr. Somnath Giri, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. No. 1 through Mr. Avik Kr. Das, the Ld. Advocate are present.The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 files Vokalatnama.The present revision has been filed by the Revisionist contending that his prayer for omission of the three of the O.Ps from the complaint should be accepted as according to the Revisionist, the said two O.Ps have no interest in the property in dispute.The contention has been opposed by the concerned Respondents.
On consideration of the above we find that the question as to whether the said O.Ps are not having any interest in the property or whether they enjoy a proprietary right exclusively or along with the present Revisionist, will be decided at the final hearing of the proceeding and said question need not be decided at this stage.In the circumstance we do not feel there is any reason for interference with the impugned order.Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.But we make it clear that we have not decided the aforesaid question on merit.
MR. A K RAY, Member
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT
MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
