Order No. 02

Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/O.P. 2 is present.

Ld. Advocate appearing for the O.Ps./complainants is present.

Ld. Advocate of the petitioner/O.P. 2 files BNA relating to the instant Misc. Case.

The instant Misc. Case is taken up for hearing.

By the application dated 12.06.2023 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C., petitioner/O.P. 2 has prayed for deletion of the name of the petitioner/O.P. 2 from the array of the parties.

It is mainly highlighted in that petition that petitioner/O.P. 2 has made the refund as per applicable law and as such no cause of action ever arose in favour of the O.Ps. /complainants.

Hence, the original case being No. CC/604/2022 stands being without any cause of action against petitioner/O.P. 2 and as such it is to be dismissed.

It is also stated in the said petition under consideration that the facts remain that O.P. 1 has received the refund and which has been expressly admitted by O.Ps./complainants in the paragraph no. 7 of their petition of complaint and as such petitioner/O.P. 2 has been arrayed as O.P. 2 being pro-forma O.P. as appears in the cause title of the CC/604/2022.

BNA of petitioner/O.P. 2 also appears to be almost a replica of the contents of the petition now under consideration.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/O.P. 2 candidly vouched that complainants/O.Ps. have admitted that O.P. 2/petitioner has already processed the refund and in view of the same, no deficiency can be attributed upon petitioner/O.P. 2 and it would be gross unfair to burden petitioner/O.P. 2 with unnecessary expense of litigation in defending the present complaint, which is only maintainable against the O.P. 1 of CC/604/2022.

Per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the O.Ps./complainants vehemently opposed the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/O.P. 2 and contended that in all fairness the presence of petitioner/O.P. 2 is must for proper adjudication of the case and at this stage, it will not be proper for deleting the name of petitioner/O.P. 2 from the cause title of CC/604/2022.

Having gone through the materials on record and touching upon the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respective parties, it may be pointed out that this Commission feels that at this premature stage, the prayer of the petitioner/O.P. 2 cannot be allowed because at the time of alleged transaction in between the O.Ps./complainants in one side and the O.P. 1 and 2 (Pro-forma O.Ps.) of CC/604/2022 in other side have their respective roles and the prayer of the petitioner/O.P. 2  can well be adjudicated during trial and not before that and as such this Commission answered the application under consideration of O.P. 2/petitioner in negative.

Hence, the instant Misc. Case is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected

 [HON'BLE MR. Shri Sankar Kumar Ghosh]
PRESIDENT