This Appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the District Forum, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in C.P.Case No. 33(S) of 1994.

 

The Respondent No.1 offered Equity Share4s on rights basis to the existing share Holders in the month of March, 1994. The complainant submitted his respective application Forms 001590 and 0002169 for 196 Nos and 100 Nos of Equity shares together vide Cheque Nos. 244484 and244483 dated 23.3.1994 on Central Bank of India Calcutta for Rs.11760/- and Rs.6000/- respectively and those cheques were drawn on the Central Bank of India together with the Rights application Forms, which was duly acknowledged by the Banker, Respondent No,3,City Bank, Calcutta on 25.3.94. After the Submission of the application forms and cheques of two months the complainant did not get the information from the opposite party No.3.M/S City Bank, Calcutta and the complainant wrote a letter on 23.5.94. requesting the City Bank to apprise the fate of the cheques together with the rights application forms. Again the complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party No.2 the Registrar to issue the said Right Issue of Equity Shares and requested to forward the respective rights Share Certificates. Similar reminders were sent to the Respondents from time to time and on failure to receive any favourable reply and since the situation did not improve the appellant/complainant lodged a complain before the learned District Forum praying for a direction on the parties to pay a sum of Rs.96,216/- together with interest to be paid to the complainant.

 

The Respondent No.1 and 3 submitted their reply. The Central Bank of India, the banker of the appellant was not impleaded as party. The Respondent in their affidavit questions their territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and also the maintainability of the Petition for want of necessary parties, apart from, disputing the merit of the application.

 

The learned District Forum after considering the merits of the case held that the Central Bank of India, Calcutta was the bankers of the complainant was not impleaded as necessary party and in the absence of the necessary party the complaint petition was not maintainable. The learned Forum also dealt with the challenge on the territorial jurisdiction as well as want of necessary party in the following paragraph:

         “….. Section 11 of the CPC Act may be said to be an import from Section 20 of the CPC. Reading Section 16 and 20 of the CPC with that of Section 11 sub Section 2 of the C.P. Act,1986, no where it provides that suit or complaint shall be instituted where the complainant resides. In this case, the opposite parties also have not quised for the institution of the complaint before this Forum. Admittedly, the whole cause of action took place at Calcutta where the office of the opposite parties are located there only and the transaction as regards the tendering of the application Forms and the cheques was initiated only `at Calcutta and that the complainant was also having the account at Central Bank of India, Calcutta where the two cheques for the said Nos of Equity Shares applied were proposed to be drawn from his Banker at Calcutta only.In the light of all these, non of the opposite parties as impleaded by the complainant are found to have been residing or personally worked for gain or carries on business or has a Branch Office within the jurisdiction of this Forum or that they have acquaised for the institution of the instant complaint before this Forum.

 

It is not known as for what reason the complainant whose Banker at Calcutta being the Central Bank of India and as submitted by both counsel is having the Branch Office also in Shillong was not impleaded as necessary party in this case so as to give scope for jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the Complaint Petition. Though the complainant has indicated the grounds of his grievance only against the opposite parties impleaded in this instant case, yet it is an admitted fact, that the Central Bank of India, Calcutta is the Complainant’s Banker and though the City Bank is to forward the application form and the cheque of the applicant, but since the complainant’s account is with the Central Bank of India and the cheques could be drawn only from that Bank, therefore, the Central Bank of India also assumes significance as a necessary party as for the purpose of verification and proper adjudication as to whether the non delivery of the application forms and the cheques in tome to opposite party No.1 was due to the fault of neither the City Bank  opposite party No.3 or of the Central Bank of India the complainant’s banker or of the complainant himself. But when the complainant has chosen not to implead his own Banker being the Central Bank of India, no proper adjudication can be arrived at in absence of such a necessary party……”

 

The District Forum accordingly held that entire cause of action took place at Calcutta and the opposite party having their office at Calcutta and the claimant also failed to implead the concerned Bank having a branch at Shillong and accordingly the complainant Petition was dismissed.

 

Mr.H.P.Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint was rightly lodged before the District Forum since the complainant was a consumer in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Consumer Protection Judgment reported in 1994 CPJ-7. Mr.Sharma has admitted the legal position that the Central Bank was a necessary party and initially it was not made a party but when the matter was brought to the notice of the complainant a verbal prayer was made before the District Forum to add the Central Bank as a party but that was not allowed. According to Mr.Sharma , the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a fit case and at this stage for ends of justice the State Forum may implead the Central Bank as party respondent and remand the matter for trial …

 

It is not in dispute now that the Central Bank of India is a necessary party. Throughout the proceeding before the District Forum no endeavour was made for impleading the Central Bank as party. The submission of the learned counsel that a verbal prayer was made for addition of parties could not be accepted on its face value. Such submissions cannot be allowed to be before an appellate authority . The matter was all through out represented by a counsel of standing and in the absence of any materials on record that cannot be accepted at this belated stage. Since the District Forum dismissed the Complaint Petition on the above two grounds in which we refrain from entering into the merits of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The finding of the learned District Forum could not be interfered on the basis of the reasons given by the learned District Forum and accordingly we do not find any merit and the appeal is dismissed.

 

           Considering the fact situation there shall, however, no order as to costs.