HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The present revision petition has been filed u/s 47(1)(b) of the CP. Act, 2019 (in short ‘The Act’) by the petitioner/revisionist Sri Debashish Chowdhyry challenging the impugned Order No.20 dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas, Baruipur (in short ‘District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/69/2023 whereby Ld. District Commission pleased to reject the application dated 05.09.2023 filed by the petitioner/revisionist.
2. I have heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the revisionist/petitioner and on careful perusal of the Order No.20 dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission below, ground of memo of revision petition and the documents filed along with it.
3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/revisionist submitted that the complainant had filed an application which suffers from non-joinder of parties.  He further submitted that the act of the complainant is absolutely malafide inter alia intending to obtain order without making the petitioner/revisionist a party to the proceeding.  He further submitted that the Ld. District Commission ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner/revisionist in the interest of equity and justice.
4. Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/revisionist and on perusal of the record, I find that the complainant one Narayan Chandra Sarkar filed a complaint case u/s 35 of the CP Act against the Respondents No. 2 & 3/OPs.  It also appears to me that the case was proceeding ex parte against Respondent No.3/OP Sri Amit Ganguly vide order dated 23.06.2023. Against the order of ex parte hearing, Respondent No.3 preferred a revisional application before this Commission as well as before the Hon’ble National Commission and both the applications filed by the Respondent No.3 were dismissed by this State Commission as well as by Hon’ble National Commission.  It also appears to me that thereafter, petitioner/revisionist appeared before the Ld. District Commission in connection with the above mentioned case and in trying to implead him as necessary party to the proceeding.  The Ld. District Commission was pleased to reject the said application by the order impugned.
5. Being aggrieved by of dismissal with the impugned order, the petitioner/revisionist has preferred this application.
6. Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/revisionist, it appears to me that Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement for sale on 24.12.2019 with the developer/Respondent No.3 Sri Amit Ganguly for purchasing one shop room with shutter, measuring about 140 sq. ft. carpet area i.e. 151 sq. ft. built up area on the ground floor in the West facing of the building as described in the Schedule-A to the petition of complaint at a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-.  As per terms of the agreement for sale, Respondent No.1/complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent No.3 towards earnest money.  It also appears to me that Respondent No.3 failed and neglected to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said shop room under agreement of for sale dated 24.12.2019 in favour of the Respondent No.1/complainant.  As such complainant filed the case being No.CC/69/2022.  The complainant/Respondent No.1 filed the complaint case being the consumer against the Respondents No. 2 & 3 who are the owner and developer respectively.
7. I find that the Revisionist/petitioner Sri Debashish Chowdhury has no connection with the complainant.  He is a subsequent intending purchaser.  Moreover, I find that the agreement for sale dated 24.12.2019 between Respondent No.1 and Respondents No. 2 & 3 have not yet been declared infurctuous, ineffective and pointless.
8. Under this fact and circumstances and on careful perusal of the impugned order under challenge, it appears to me that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.
9. In view of the above, I hold that the order of Ld. District Commission below should not be disturbed.  Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
10. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
12. The Ld. District Commission below is directed to dispose the case as early as possible without giving any adjournment to either of the parties.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Commission below.
14. Office to comply.