HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition is at the instance of the revisionist / complainant and is directed against the order No. 6 dated 24/05/2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/14/2024 whereby Learned District Commission was pleased to allow Misc. application being No. M.A/79/2024 and M.A/159/2024.

2. The revisionist / petitioner being the complainant filed the consumer case being No. CC/14/2024 praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) immediately complete execution and registration of the necessary Sale Deed in respect of the said Flat;

ii) pass an Ad-interim / Interim Injunction Order restraining the Opposite Parties from selling, transferring, alienatingthe said Flat to any third party or executing or registering sale Deed in favour of any third party till disposal of the Case;

iii) pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation against deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and resultant harassment, mental agony and sufferings;

iv) pay Litigation Cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and

v) pass any other order or orders as Yours Honour may deem fit.”

3. Notice was duly served upon the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 entered appearance in this case.

4. During pendency of the said complaint case the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and one Krishna Rani Basu filed application praying for addition of name of Krishna Rani Basu in the petition of complaint as the opposite party. The Learned District Commission was pleased to allow both the said applications filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and Krishna Rani Basu by the order impugned.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order, the revisionist / complainant has preferred this revisional application.

6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / petitioner and on perusal of the record it appears to me that Krishna Rani Basu paid Rs.13,55,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakh and fifty five thousand only) in favour of the opposite party, M/s. Nandi Construction Company by issuing two A/c Payee cheques being Nos. 839522 dated 01/12/2014 and 839526 dated 20/03/2015 in respect of the flat in question. It also appears to me that before filing this case the petitioner / complainant got possession of the flat from the opposite party No. 1. But the petitioner / complainant drove out Krishna Rani Basu from the house and a criminal case was instituted against the complainant u/s 406/ 420/ 325/ 307/ 427/ 506 & 34 IPC. In such a situation, I am of the view that for proper and effective adjudication of the present case, the presence of said Krishna Rani Basu is required.

7. Under this facts and circumstances I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly allowed both the applications and has held that the present case should be adjudicated in presence of Krishna Rani Basu because she gave Rs.13,55,000/- in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 relating to sale of the flat which is the subject matter of the case.

8. Under this facts and circumstances I find that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission. In view of the matter I 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.

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

10. The Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

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

12. Office to comply.