Circuit Bench Asansol

StateCommission

IA/40/2021

Tarun Kumar Goswami & Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ranjit Kumar Paul & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Debdas Rudra

09 Feb 2022

ORDER

ASANSOL CIRCUIT BENCH
of
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KSTP COMMUNITY HALL , DAKSHIN DHADKA
ASANSOL, PASCHIM BURDWAN - 713302
 
Interlocutory Application No. IA/40/2021
( Date of Filing : 22 Dec 2021 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/13/2020
 
1. Tarun Kumar Goswami & Another
Resident of Flat No 3/C,Utsha Apartment,1/1, Najrul Sarani,Sreenagar Pally, Durgapur-713213
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ranjit Kumar Paul & Others
Residing At Flat No 2/B,1/1,Nazrul Sarani,Srinagar Pally,Durgapur-713213
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. ASHIS KUMAR BASU MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Debdas Rudra, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Dated : 09 Feb 2022
Final Order / Judgement

HON’BLE MR. KAMAL DE, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. : 01

Date : 09.02.2022

Parties are present through their respective Ld. Lawyers.

IA/40/2021 is taken up for hearing.

Heard both sides. Considered.

Perused the petition for substitution dated 13.12.2021 and its objection.

In filing the petition the complainants have prayed for incorporating partnership Firm, namely, “M/S Utsha Construction” as OP No. 4 in cause title of the complaint petition, as the complainants missed to add the said partnership Firm a party in this case, though the partners have already been made parties in this case.

Ld. Lawyer for the OPs in filing objection has stated that the present petition is not maintainable because the OPs have filed the petition for substitution of the parties and no question of substitution arises as no incident of death of any partner took place.

Moreover, the petition is also barred by limitation.

It is also stated that the complainants are dragging the case and not diligent in dealing with the case. Moreover, the OPs raised the point about misjoinder of the parties earlier.

On perusal of the case record, we find that the partnership Firm namely, “Utsha Construction” is not made a party in this case, though the partners have already been made a parties. We think that for proper and effective adjudication of the case, the Firm is required to be made a party in the complaint petition.

It is truism of law that misquotation or non-quotation of Section is not a ground for rejection of any petition.

It is true that the complainants have slept over the matter for days together and has filed the instant petition at this stage though the case was filed way in way back in 2020. Be that as it may we feel inclined to allow the petition with cost.

Hence,

                                                        ORDERED

That the instant IA Case 40/2021 be and same is allowed with cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid to the OPs by the complainants. 

Complainants to file amended petition of complaint by the date fixed and take step upon added OP No. 4.

The instant IA case is thus disposed of accordingly.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ASHIS KUMAR BASU]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.