Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Revision is filed against the Order dated 08-02-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum in CC/114/2015, whereof the maintainability petition moved by the Revisionists has been rejected by the Ld. District Forum.

Briefly narrated, case of the Revisionists is that the subject agreement was executed in between the Respondent No. 1 and themselves in Kolkata.  Further, they do not have any branch/registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  It is also alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were in no way connected with the Revisionist No. 1; moreover, there is no specific averment against them in the petition of complaint.  According to the Revisionists the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have unnecessarily been implicated in the case to invoke the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the Revisionists as well as the Respondent No. 1 in the matter and perused the material on record.

It is stated in paragraph no. 4 of the petition of complaint that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 collected the entire loan amount from the residence of the Respondent No. 1.  Further, in paragraph no. 5 of the petition of complaint it is stated that after repaying the entire loan amount, the Respondent No. 1 urged Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 along with Revisionist No. 2 to issue ‘No due Certificate’, but they did not pay any heed. 

In view of this, the objection of the Revisionists notwithstanding, it appears that Respondent No. 1 has made out prima facie case against the Respondent Nos. 2&3, who are stated to be the residents of Birbhum district.  Whether or not, the said Respondents indeed had any association with the Revisionists that cannot be decided at the primary stage of the case. However, Revisionists shall be at liberty to agitate this issue at the time of final hearing. 

Thus, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. Any sort of intervention with such judicious decision, therefore, does not arise at all.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Revision stands dismissed against the Respondent No. 1 without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.