DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No. 217/2021    

P R E S E N T                :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.

                                       :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu………………. Member.

Order No.21

Dated.09.01.2024

Today is fixed for order in respect of the petition U/s 38 (8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which registered as M.A. case no. 63/2021.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1-4 is present. Perused the said petition. We find that Complainant filed the said petition U/s 38 (8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 27/09/2021. On that date this Commission gave an order vide order no. 01 dated 27/09/2021. This Commission opined that there is no prima facie case to allow the prayer for interim order in favour of the Complainant. Accordingly interim order was refused on that date. Complainant, in the said petition made a prayer for an order of interim injunction restraining the Opposite Parties and their workers and men and agents from carrying out any further direction in or over the property in dispute and from transferring the same or any part of the same to any third party or from dealing with the same in any manner whatsoever and from handing over any flat or shop room or any part thereof to any third party and or creating any third party interest in any form and from changing the nature and character of the property in dispute till the disposal of this case and till such time.

This Commission in the order no. 1 categorically discussed the entire matter and lastly came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case.

On careful scrutiny of the aforesaid petition we find that if the present petition is allowed then some other persons will be affected who are not the party of the present case. It is settled principles of law that a person who is not the party to the present proceedings cannot be suffered by any way by any order of the present case.

In view of aforesaid discussion we are of the view that we do not find any prima facie case in favour of the Complainant in respect of the aforesaid petition. We also find that balance of convenience and inconvenience is not lying in favour of the Complainant.

Moreover we also find that Complainant will not suffer any loss which cannot be compensated by any way on the case of refusal of interim order.

In view of the aforesaid discussion we are not inclined to grant any interim order in favour of the Complainants. Hence, the petition dated 27/09/2021 which registered as M.A. 63/2021 is considered and rejected but without any order as to cost.

M.A. case 63/2021 is thus disposed of.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No. 217/2021

Today is also fixed for hearing of the another petition U/s 38(8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which registered as M.A. /174/2023. Record is put up for order. Perused the said petition. Complainant filed the said petition praying for order restraining the O.Ps and their men to sell out the flats and garages in question over ‘A’ schedule property to any third person or change of the nature and character of the complaint property in any manner or today any illegal acts in any manner. The prayers of the present petition and prayers mentioned in M.A. case no. 63/2021 are almost similar in some points.

Complainant by filing this petition are trying to restrain the Opposite Parties so that Opposite Parties cannot sell any flat to any third person and O.Ps cannot do any work over the aforesaid property or do not enter over the aforesaid property.

If the present petition is allowed then some other persons will be affected who are not the party to this case. Moreover O.Ps will be suffered economically.

Considering the allegation in the petition we find that Complainant failed to established prima facie case to get the aforesaid type of interim order. Moreover balance of convenience and inconvenience are not lying in favour of the Complainant.

In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the firm view that aforesaid petition should not be allowed.

Hence,

                             It is,

                                       Ordered,

          That the petition dated 20/09/2023 which registered as M.A. 174/2023 is considered and rejected.

          M.A. case no. 174/2023 is thus disposed of.      

Today is also fixed for hearing the petition for engineer commissioner filed by the Complainant which registered as M.A. 04/2024. Petitioner mentioned some points for local investigation. We have carefully gone through the said petition and also the petition of complaint. We think that for proper adjudication of the present dispute investigation report by engineer commissioner will be helpful.

          Considering the entire matter we think that the petition should be allowed. Hence, petition dated 20/09/2023 filed by the Complainant which registered as M.A. 04/2024 is allowed on contest but without any order as to cost.

          To 05/02/2024 for appointment of engineer commissioner and further order.

          M.A. case no. 04/2024 is thus disposed of.

                          Member                            President