HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order No. 10 dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, ‘ the District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/56/2022 thereby rejected the prayer of the petitioner / revisionist, inter alia, praying for leave to cross examine the complainant as the petitioner has failed to file the written version.

2. The complainants / respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a complaint case against the revisionist / opposite party No. 2 praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To admit the complaint and issue show cause notice upon the Opposite parties;

ii) An ad-interim  order injunction as per the provision of section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, over the subject flat that is the subject residential flat on the south east side  being Flat No. A-1 on the first floor, measuring about 600 sq.ft. including super built up area situate and lying at 299/B, Nagendra Nath Road, P.S. Dumdum, Kolkata – 700028, under South Dumdum Municipality, in ward no.23, interalia, restraining the developer and/or the other named opposite parties and / or their men and agents to encumber, alienate, sell in favour of any third person, in the named address / building in any manner whatsoever. The opposite parties be further restrained from entering into agreement for sale and/or execute deed of conveyance and / or any such other documents / instruments, interalia, encumbering such flat in reference till the service provider and/ or the opposite parties appears before the Hon’ble Commission and allocate the particular flat allocated to the complainant and deliver the same in favour of the complainant by filing an affidavit to that effect.

iii) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer ‘b’ above.

iv) The opposite parties upon failing to appear before this Hon’ble Commission, such ad-interim order in terms of prayer ‘b’ be made absolute.

v) To hand over the possession of the said residential flat on the south east side being Flat no. A-1 on the first floor, measuring about 600 sq. ft. including super built up area situate and lying at 299/B, Nagendra Nath Road, P.S. Dumdum, Kolkata – 700028, under South Dumdum Municipality, in ward no. 23 and execute the deed of conveyance thereof in favour of the complainants;

                   Alternatively

To refund the complainants the sum of Rs.14,00,000/- so deposited by the complainant in terms of the agreement dated 14.05.2018 along with appropriate interest and further compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to compensate the damage and sufferings of the complainants due to the deficient in service on the part of the opposite parties as narrated herein before;

vi) Litigation cost of Rs.35,000/-

And to pass any such further direction and / or directions, order and / or orders as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.”

3. The revisionist / opposite party No. 2 entered appearance in this case and filed an application for granting leave to file questionnaire for cross examination of the complainant before the Learned District Commission. The Learned District Commission after hearing the same, was pleased to reject the said application.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the revisionist / opposite party No. 2 has preferred this revisional application. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist/ opposite party No. 2 has urged that the Learned District Commission below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on it by not granting leave to cross examine the complainant. Hence the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 is liable to be set aside and / or quashed.

5. Learned Advocate has urged that the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and outcome of non application of judicial mind on the part of the Learned District Commission below.

6. He has further urged that Learned District Commission miserably failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it and also exceeded the jurisdiction not vested on it.

7. He has further urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and /or quashed.

8. Heard arguments at length raised by the Learned Advocate for the revisionist / opposite party No. 2.

9. We have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Commission. Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah in connection with consumer case No. CC/256/2022 which is under challenge also the documents available in the file.

10. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on careful perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that the revisionist / opposite party No. 2 filed an application for granting of leave to file questionnaire for cross examination of the complainant. It also appears to us that after filing of the case notice was duly issued upon the opposite party No. 2. On receiving the notice, the opposite party No. 2 did not appear and did not file the written version within the statutory period. As such, the case was proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No. 2 / revisionist. It appears to us that the application for granting leave to file questionnaire for cross examination of the complainant was filed by the opposite party No. 2 while the case was proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No. 2.

11. On careful perusal of the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 it appears to us that the said order was well reasoned and the same has been passed keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the case is proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No. 2/ revisionist.

12. We find that since the opposite party No. 2 has failed to file the written version, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is not permitted to cross examine the witness at length, only he can be permitted to cross examine the witness only on the point of law. It is found from the record that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a lengthy questionnaire which is not permissible in law.

13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah in connection with consumer case No. CC/56/2022 and, as such, the revision petition filed by the revisionist /opposite party No. 2 is hereby dismissed.

14. The revision application is thus disposed of accordingly.