HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. Challenge is to the order No. 9 dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with Misc. Application No. M.A./220/2022 arising out of complaint case No. CC/242/2022 thereby the application filed by the opposite party No. 4 to expunge his name from the cause title of the petition of complaint was rejected.

2. The respondent No. 1 / complainant filed a complaint case being No. CC/242/2022 against the revisionist and respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To execute the deed of conveyance and handover the physical possession of the developed land in favour of the Complainant as mentioned in the Agreement for sale dated 27.04.2012.

ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service / unfair trade practice, harassment and mental agony.

iii) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost.

iv) And any other relief and / or reliefs as Your Honour deem fit and proper”.

3. The revisionist / opposite party No. 4 entered appearance in this case and filed an application praying for expunging his name from the cause title of the petition of complaint. The Learned District Commission below after hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant and on considering the materials on record rejected the application for expunging the name of the opposite party No. 4 from the cause title of the petition of complaint by the order impugned.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionist preferred this revisional application.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / opposite party No. 4 has urged that the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 is otherwise bad in law. The Learned District Commission below erred both in law and in fact.

6. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission below acted illegally with material irregularity at the time of passing the impugned order in connection with consumer complaint case being No. CC/242/2022.

7. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission below ought to have decided the said application for expunge on merit than to pass the order dated 10.05.2023 as passed by the Learned District Commission below.

8. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission did not consider the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by applying his judicial mind properly at the time of passing the impugned order.

9. He has further urged that nobody should be unheard when appears on record and willing to contest the case at the time of passing the impugned order.  Learned Lawyer appearing for the revisionist / opposite party No. 4 has prayed that the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

10. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the record it appears to us that after filing of the complaint case No. CC/242/2022 notice upon the opposite parties were duly served. The revisionist / opposite party No. 4 appeared before the Learned District Commission below and filed an application praying for expunging his name from the cause title of the petition of complaint.  It also appears to us that the revisionist / opposite party No. 4 did not file written version in time before the Learned District Commission below. Since the statutory period of limitation to file written version has already been expired, the case is proceeded ex parte against the revisionist / opposite party No. 4.

11. It also appears to us that the complainant has filed the instant complaint case against M/s. ABS Land Development and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors and authorized signatory. It appears from the petition of complaint that the revisionist / opposite party No. 4 is the authorized signatory of the said M/s. ABS Land Development and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Since the complainant has stated in the petition of complaint that the revisionist / opposite party No. 4 is the authorized signatory of the said M/s ABS Land Development and Construction Pvt. Ltd., the presence of the revisionist in this case is necessary for effective and proper adjudication of the case.

12. In such a situation, we are of the view that the Learned Commission below has rightly rejected the expunge application filed by the revisionist / opposite party No. 4.  Therefore, we may conclude that the Learned District Commission below has rightly dismissed the M.A. Application being No. M.A./220/2022.

13. On perusal of the said order under challenge it appears to us that there is no incorrectness, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.

14. In view of the above, we hold that the order of the Learned District Commission should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

16. The Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.

18. Office to comply.