Order No: 3 Date:15/09/2023
Today is fixed for hearing of this M.A. Case which has been initiated by the O.P. of C.C. Case No. 80/2019 over the issue that the complaint Case No. 80/2019 is not maintainable.
This prayer has been contested by the O.P. of this Misc. Case who is the complainant of above noted C.C. Case by filing written objection.
Heard argument of both sides. Considered submission.
It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant side of the M.A. Case who is the O.P. of C.C. Case No. 80/2019 is that in Title Suit No. 358/2019 which is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior) Division 2nd Court, Howrah. The Ops of this Misc. Case has obtained injunction and that injunction order has been continued time to time. It is argued that this above noted Title Suit No. 358/2019 is pending in between the same parties of this case and so there is no justification of continuation of this C.C. Case No. 80/2019. Over this issue Ld. Advocate for the applicant of this M.A. Case who is the O.P. of C.C. Case No. 80/2019 has filed the certified copy of the order dt. 17.07.2019.
On the other hand the O.P. of this M.A. Case who is the complainant of C.C. Case No. 80/2019 pointed out that subject matter of C.C. Case No. 80/2019 and subject matter of Title Suit No. 358/2019 are totally different and so for the pendency of the above noted Civil Suit, this complaint case cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable.
Now the question is whether during pendency of a Civil Suit the jurisdiction of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission for trying any complaint case prevail or not . In this respect the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of SATPAL MOHINDRA VS. SURINDRA TIMBER STORES which is reported in (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases page 619 very important where Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that suit filed during pendency of any proceedings before the Consumer Forum for a different relief could not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum . Similar view has also been observed by Hon’ble State Commission, W.B. in the case of Devi Prasad Chaterjee Vs. Smt. Chaitali Das which was observed on 5th March, 2020.
Considering all these aspects the point of contention of the applicant of the M.A. Case cannot be accepted.
It is found that this District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has the jurisdiction to try the C.C. Case No. 80/2019 during pendency of Title Suit No. 358/2019.
In the light of the observation made above this M.A. Case No. 48/2023 is dismissed on contest. Let the case record of M.A. Case No. 48/2023 be tagged with the case record of C.C. Case No. 80/2019
Dictated & corrected by me.
President