ORDER NO. 7 

The present Misc. Application bearing No. MA/825/2016 has been filed by the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation in connection with Complaint Case No. 128/2016 praying for  expunging the name of the OP No. 2 from the Petition of Complaint concerned.

The Ld. Advocate for the Misc. Applicant/OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation submits that the dispute involved in the Complaint Case is of civil nature, that no relief against the OP No. 2 has been claimed by the Complainant and that the Complainant is not a Consumer of the OP No. 2, and hence, the name of the OP No. 2, which is not a necessary party in the Complaint Case, should be expunged.

As against this submission, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that as the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation is closely connected with the acts or transactions involved in the Complaint, and as without the OP No. 2 this Commission would not be able to adjudicate the Complaint Case properly and effectively, so the name of the OP No. 2, being a necessary party, should not be expunged and hence, the Misc. Application concerned should be rejected.

The Ld. Advocate for the other Respondent, i.e. the OP No. 1-Developer, submits that if the name of the OP No. 2, which has close nexus with the acts or transactions involved in the Complaint, is expunged, then the Complaint Case concerned would suffer from non-joinder of necessary party which is against the proper adjudication of the case and hence, the said Misc. Application should be rejected.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

The records reveal that the Misc. Applicant-Municipal Corporation is closely connected with the act of deviation from the sanctioned plan in construction of the building, purchase of a flat of which is involved in the Petition of Complaint.  The Complaint Petition also reveals that the Complainant has claimed relief against the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation.

It is the settled principle of law that necessary parties are those parties in absence of which the adjudicating forum cannot adjudicate the case properly and effectively.  It is also settled that if there is common act or transaction, but not common cause of action, out of which the relief is claimed, as in the present case, the parties involved in the common act or transaction are necessary parties.

As in the Complaint Case on hand the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation, in the context of the facts alleged, appears to be closely connected with the act or transaction involved in the Complaint Case and the Complainant has claimed relief against the Misc. Applicant/OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation and thus the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation has become a necessary party,  so the expunging the name of the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation would stand in the way of proper and effective adjudication of the Complaint Case and hence, the prayer for expunging the name of the OP No. 2-Municipal Corporation is rejected.  The Misc. Application bearing No. MA/825/2016 is thus rejected.

Fix  20.1.2017 for filing evidence on affidavit by the Complainant.