HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. :  04

Date : 27.09.2024

    By filing IA/76/2023 dated 13.10.2023, the petitioners of both these IA Applications being the OPs of CC/8/2022 Nos. 1 and 2, Sunil Chandra Saha and Laxmi Rani Saha have prayed for acceptance of their filed written version dated 16.08.2023, in connection with CC/8/2022, contending that they could not file written version as the OPs 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022, on time within the stipulated time span statutorily permitted as per C.P. Act since the complainant of CC/8/2022 Sri Rajib Sen and others had not furnished pertinent documents while giving copy of the complaint and notice in connection of their filed CC/8/2022 to the OPs of CC/8/2022 i.e. to the applicants of these two IA Applications, properly and consequently therefore lending inadequate scope to the OPs of CC/8/2022 comprehend the issues of CC/8/2022against the OPs Nos. 1 and 2 of the said Complaint Case i.e. against the petitioners of both these IA, namely, Sunil Chandra Saha and his wife Laxmi Rani Saha and it is pressed by the OPs of CC/8/2022that for the reasons of absence of inadequate pertinent materials, furnished by the complainant side of CC/8/2022to the OPs Nos. 1 and 2 of the said CC/8/2022, they (OP Nos. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 i.e. the applicants of these 2 IAs) could not furnish the written version from their end in CC/8/2022within stipulated time, fixed for that purpose statutorily.

    By filing IA/76/2023 supported by affidavit, the OPs 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022 have prayed for the acceptance of their filed written version in CC/8/2022filed from their end on 16.08.2023, by allowing their prayer for condonation of such delay in filing written version from their end in CC/8/2022on 16.08.2023.

    By filing IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024, the Applicants/Petitioners Sunil Chandra Saha and Laxmi Rani Saha have contended further that they could not file written version on time from their end, as the OPs 1 and 2 in CC/8/2022 because of the reason that copies of the ‘Deeds’ on which the complainant of CC/8/2022, relied upon to substantiate their stand in CC/8/2022, so supplied from the end of the complainant of CC/8/2022, upon these 2 petitions of IA/80/2024 i.e. to the OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022were not containing complete and pertinent particulars to be assessed to enable the OPs of CC/8/2022i.e to the Applicants of IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024 to prepare their written version to be furnished from their end in CC/8/2022and for that reason they could not furnish their written version as the OP Nos. 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022on time, as per C.P. Act and by asserting such submission, the OPs of CC/8/2022i.e. the applicants of this IA both have pressed for directing the complainants of CC/8/2022to furnish the applicants of this IA i.e. to the OPs 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022proper documents and they both have pressed for acceptance of their filed written version dated 16.08.2023 in CC/8/2022 by condoning their delay in filing the same on time, as prescribed for that purpose, as per C.P. Act of 2019.

    It is pertinent to reflect that even though this IA/80/2024 was filed before this Commission on 21.05.2024 by the Applicants of this IA yet they as the OPs 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022had filed written version from their end on 16.08.2023, after their filing the other IA i.e. IA/76/2023 dated 13.10.2023 almost on the same point.

    It is also pertinent to reflect here that by filing IA/80/2024, in support of their contentions so reflected from their end in IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024, the Applicants of the IA/80/2024 have submitted categorically that though the complainant of CC/8/2022had relied on the Sale Deed No. 9750 of 2018 existing in favour of Rajib Sen executed by the OPs 1 and 2 of CC/8/2022, Sunil Chandra Saha and Laxmi Rani Saha in respect of one of the flats of CC/8/2022, yet the Xerox Copy of such Sale Deed, supplied to the Applicants of this IA/80/2024 were not containing page 13 and page 14 to 16 of that particular Deed.

    The Applicants of IA/80/2024 have also agitated that similarly the Xerox Copy of sale Deed of flat belonging to the other complainant of CC/8/2022i.e. Jaharlal Mallick vide Sale Deed No. 735 of 2018, so executed by them in his favour were not containing page no. 4, 6 and pages No. 17 to 27 of that Sale Deed No. 735 of 2018, when they perused the same, on being so furnished by the complainant’s side of CC/8/2022.

   The Applicants of IA/80/2024, have also pressed that similarly the Xerox copy of Sale Deed No. 9399 of 2021 in respect of flat belonging to the other complainants of CC/8/2022Ambika Roy and Sangita Roy, so executed by them in their favour were not containing the pages No. 3 and 4 to 11, 17 to 19, when they perused the same, on being so furnished by the complainant side of CC/8/2022.

    The Applicants of IA/80/2024 have also submitted that similarly, the Xerox copy of the Sale Deed No. 1989 of 2020 in respect of the flat belonging to the other complainants of CC/8/2022, Anjana Saha and Alpana Saha, so executed by the Applicants in favour of Anjana Saha and Alpana Saha were not containing Page Nos. 3, 4 to 12, when the applicants of the IA/80/2024 perused the same, on being so furnished by the complainant side of CC/8/2022.

    The Applicants of IA/80/2024 have also focused to their grievance by contending that the Xerox Copy of the Sale Deed No. 11022 of 2021, in respect of the flat belonging to the other complainant of CC/8/2022 Bijoy Banerjee and other so executed by the applicants of the IA/80/2024 in favour of Bijoy Banjerjee and Doyamoyi Banerjee were not containing pages No. 3, 4 to 9, when the applicants perused the same, on being furnished by the complainant side of CC/8/2022.

   The Applicants of this IA/80/2024 have also asserted by contending that the Xerox Copy of the Sale Deed No. 1503 of 2018 in respect of a flat, belonging to the complainant Bandana Saha and Barnali Saha of CC/8/2022, so executed by the applicants of IA/80/2024 in favour of Bandana Saha and Barnali Saha were into containing pages No. 5 to 10, when the Applicants perused the same, on being so furnished by the complainant side of CC/8/2022.

   By contending these points as reflected above, the applicants of IA/80/2024, being the OPs of CC/8/2022have pressed that because of the non-furnishing by the complainants of CC/8/2022of the pertinent materials of the aforestated sole Deeds, executed from their end in favour of the respective complainants of CC/8/2022 and because of the incomplete furnishing of the relevant Deeds, so relied upon by the complainant side of CC/8/2022, to them by the complainant side of CC/8/2022, the Applicants of IA/802024 i.e. the OPs of CC/8/2022could not prepare the written version of CC/8/2022from their end and thereby they could not file their written version in CC/8/2022on time, as stipulated and it is the assertion of the Applicant’s of this IA that since the delay in filing written version in CC/8/2022 from their end on time was because of such inadvertence, perpetrated by the complainant of CC/8/2022 at the cost of  the OPs of CC/8/2022, so there inability to file written version in CC/8/2022 on time may be excused by accepting their filed written version in CC/8/2022 on 16.08.2023.

    Since the basic contents of prayers of both these IAs are same pressed from the applicants of these two IAs so both these IAs are taken up for consideration at a time weighing the recriminations of the contesting parties of these two IAs i.e. IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 respectively.

Points for consideration

    Now it is to be determined and assessed as to whether the present IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 filed by the applicants deserve to be allowed or not.

Decision with reasons

   The matter in issue rests on the point in these two IA is to ascertain as to whether the written version intended to be filed by the OPs of CC/8/2022i.e. the applicants of both these IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2023, be allowed to be accepted for consideration in adjudicating CC/08/2022from which these two IA arose, even if the written version of complaint case is filed much beyond the time stipulated, as per scopes of C.P. Act, fixed for filing the same by the OP side of CC/08/2022.

   It appears from the available materials on record that in connection with CC/08/2022filed by the complainant of CC/8/2022 i.e. the OP of these two IA (IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024) against the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 of these IA both that they assert, the applicants Nos. 1 and 2, being the OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 were duly summoned in connection with the CC/08/2022dated 31.08.2022 and 18.11.2022 was fixed in CC/08/2022 for their S/R and appearance and the postal track record of CC/08/2022 reveals that the OPs of the CC/08/2022i.e. the applicants of these two IA both were duly summoned on 21.09.2022 in connection with the CC/8/2022.

    It appears that on 18.11.2022 the OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022had not turned up in CC/08/2022proceeding and on 23.12.2022, the OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022Sunil Chandra Saha and Laxmi Rani Saha appeared in CC/08/2022before this Commission and contended that they could ascertain on scrutiny of paper of CC/08/2022and its complaint and summons that were available with them that the documents that were relied upon by the complainant of CC/08/2022 to file CC/08/2022against the applicants of IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 were not in order and they prayed by filing a petition on that date i.e. on 23.12.2022 before the SCDRC, Asansol to direct the complainants of CC/8/2022 to furnish proper documents from their end in connection with the CC/8/2022 to enable the Applicants of these two IA/OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 to file written version from their end in CC/08/2022as the OPs No. 1 and 2 of the said CC/08/2022.

   It appears from the materials on record that the said petition of the applicants of these two IA/OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022remained undisposed.

   It also transpires further that later on 16.08.2023 these applicants filed written version in CC/08/2022 as the OPs No. 1 and 2 of that CC/8/2022 and on 13.10.2023 the OPs NO. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 filed IA/76/2023 and contended that since in spite of their drawing attention by their filed petition dated 23.12.2022 seeking for providing them better documents by the complainant of CC/08/2022for enabling the applicants to file written version in CC/08/2022, the applicants were not supplied with better/complete particulars of the documents, relied upon by the complainant of CC/08/2022so they could not file written version in CC/08/2022 from their end on time but filed written version on 16.08.2023 and by filing IA/76/2023 they also sought for condonation of delay in filing written version from their end in CC/08/2022.

         It appears from the case record that by filing IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024, the applicants of both these IA76/2023 and IA/80/2024 reflected some disturbing defects in the Xerox copies of the pertinent documents, sent from the end of the complainants of CC/08/2022 towards them to lend them scope to file written version in CC/08/2022 and it is the assertion of the applicants of this IA that because of that reason and the laches of the complainant of CC/08/2022, the applicants of these two IAs were delayed in filing written version in CC/08/2022 on time, as prescribed.

   It is the specific assertion of the applicants of IA/76/2023 dated 13.10.2023 and IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024 that because of those defects in the form of missing ‘Data’ in the Xerox copies of the documents, supplied by the complainant of CC/8/2022 to them, the applicants could not file written version on time in CC/08/2022 as the OPs 1 and 2 of that CC/8/2022 and by filing IA/80/2024, the Applicants have prayed for direction of this Commission to be given upon the complainant of CC08/2024, to supply the applicants of those two IAs complete and proper documents as per their petition dated 23.12.2022 and accept the written version of the CC/08/2022 from their end, by condoning delay in filing written version from their end in CC/08/2022, on time.

   Heard the claims and counter claims of the recriminating contestant of both these IA/73/2023 and IA/80/2024 respectively.

   It appears from the available documents, so furnished by the complainant side of CC/08/2022, to the OPs of CC/8/2022 i.e. the applicants of IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 that the allegations of the applicants regarding non furnishing of proper contents of deeds in proper manner are legally sustainable and rationally substantiating since, I find that there were clear ambiguities in contents of the copies of the relevant ‘Deeds’ supplied by the complainants of CC/08/2022 to the applicants/OP of CC/08/2022 so mentioned in the contents of this order that practically lent sufficient ground of causation of hindrance to the OPs of CC/08/2022 to prepare their written version in CC/08/2022 and consequently procrastinating them to be delayed in filing written version on time in CC/8/2022.     

   I have my every regard to the cited reference of the complainant side in the form of the reference of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent pronounced on 04.03.2020 that has come with prospective effect and it is determined decisively that the District Forum has no power to extend time for filing response to the complainant beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as per scopes of Sec. 13 of the C.P. Act of 1986 and the commencing point of limitation of 30 days U/Sec. 13 of C.P. Act of 1986 would be from the date of the receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the OP and not mere receipt of notice.

    In the premises, having regard to the binding effect of this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.03.2020there remains no scope to allow the written version in CC/08/2022 to be accepted in CC/08/2022 since in this case it was filed after the statutory period prescribed for that purpose as per C.P. Act and further emphasized by the aforestated decision yet having regard to the distinguishing fact of this CC/08/2022 that the contents of the documents that formed the basis of the complaint of CC/08/2022, were supplied with ambiguity and many of those documents in the form of an many as five sale deeds were found replete with incomplete data and particulars and for that reason, I find that the same had  practically hindered the (OPs 1 and 2) of CC/08/2022 in true sense from furnishing written version in CC/8/2022 from their end within stipulated time, as prescribed in CC/08/2022.

   It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant of CC/08/2022 were the best persons to furnish the exhaustive and Xerox copies of those sale deeds in complete and correct form as the vendors of those sale deeds to furnish the correct particulars of those deeds to enable the OPs of CC/08/2022 i.e. the applicants of IA/76/2023and IA/80/2024 to file written version from their end in CC/08/2022 on time, as prescribed.

   In the premises I find that both these IA/76/2023 dated 13.10.2023 and IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024 deserves to be allowed on the basis of the decision as reflected above specially when the commencing point of limitation for filing written version, as per relvant scopes of C.P. Act would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not from the time of mere receipt of notice of complaint and here in this case the pertinent data that constituted the basis of complaint of CC/08/2022 were replete with incomplete and trached Data rendering the complaint itself confusing to be assessed since furnishing with exhaustive complaint in this case was a must to prepare and submit effective, legally entertainable written version.

    Accordingly both these IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 are found legally enterainable, having regard to the aforestated discussion in this order that governs the fate of IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 both.

    Hence, it is

                                    ORDERED

    That both the IA/76/2023 dated 13.10.2023 and IA/80/2024 dated 21.05.2024, so filed by the Applicants of these IA both/OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 stand allowed on contest but without cost.

    The written version filed in CC/08/2022 on 16.08.2023 so filed from the OP Nos. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 i.e. the Appellants of IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 be accepted and be allowed to be weighed in considering the merits of CC/08/2022 on the way to reach its final decision.

   In the premises, the prayers of IA/76/2023 and IA/80/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing written version by the OPs No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 i.e. Sunil Chandra Saha and Laxmi Rani Saha stand allowed on contest.

    The complainant side of CC/08/2022 are directed to furnish copies of detailed, correct unambiguous and exhaustive contents of all relevant Sale Deeds of themselves existing in respect of their purchased flats, so described in CC/08/2022 besides other relevant documents on which they rely on substantiating the complaint case in CC/08/2022, to the OPs 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 within thirty days from the date of this order in IA/73/2023 and IA/80/2024 arising from CC/08/2022 and the applicants of these two IA are at liberty to file additional written version if any in CC/08/2022, on perusal of those Data of documents, within 15 days in this CC/08/2022 from the date of receipt of the copies of those documents/deeds of sale of the flats, involved in CC/8/2022.

   To 28.10.2024 is for appearance of the contesting parties of CC/08/2022, complainant side furnishing copies of documents and Sale Deeds relied upon by the complainant in CC/08/2022 to the OP No. 1 and 2 of CC/08/2022 and passing of necessary order, if any, on hearing and taking steps by the complainants of CC/08/2022 upon the remaining other OP (OP 3 of CC/08/2022) Sumanta Mukherjee without fail in respect of CC/08/2022.