West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/83/2009

Priyajit Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Kanailal Ghosh - Opp.Party(s)

Sujoy Bhattacharjee

17 Aug 2009

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
REVISION PETITION NO. 83 of 2009
1. Priyajit PalS/o. Late Ajit Kumar Pal, shop. Khagendra Jewellery, 2 No.G.N.P.L. Road, Ranaghat, NadiaWest Bengal2. Apu Paul, C/o. Late Benu PaulKhagendra Jewellery, 2 No. G.N.P.L. Road, Ranaghat, NadiaWest Bengal ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Sri Kanailal GhoshS/o. Late Kalipada Ghosh, Ramnagar, Milan Bagan Para, Ranaghat, Nadia,Pin-741 201West Bengal ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Sujoy Bhattacharjee, Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 17 Aug 2009
ORDER

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.

 

No. 2/17.08.2009.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Heard Mr. Sujoy Bhattacharya, the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.  It appears that the contention of the Revisionist is that original judgement dated 27.11.2008 in Case No. CC/08/43 order was passed ex parte beyond the knowledge of the Revisionist and thus making the Revisionist unable to contest the proceeding or to point out the mistake in the above circumstances and that is why in the Execution Case the point was taken contending that the said final order dated 27.11.2008 passed in the original proceeding requires a correction.

 

Considering the above contention and perusing the impugned order as it appears that the Forum below has rightly held that it has no power to review its own order, we do not find any ground for interference in the revision petition.  Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.  We make it clear that we have not decided any question on merit of the original order.

 


, , ,