HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJIT MONDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition is at the instance of the Revisionists/Petitioners and is directed against the impugned order  No. 5 dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly (in short District Commission) in connection with the Consumer Case No. CC/44/2023 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to dispose of the MA application filed by the Revisionists/Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2.
2. The Respondents No. 1 & 2 being Complainants filed a petition of complaint before the Ld. District Commission being No. CC/44/2023 praying for the following reliefs :

1. An order directing the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to complete the works of Flats 2A and 3A of the Apartment under the name and style of “Suhasini” earmarked for the Complainants as per the registered “Agreement for Development”, Being No. 00586 for the year 2014,  within a stipulated period  as may be directed by your Honour, and to cause execution and registration of a proper Deed of transfer or Possession Letter, as the case may be applicable as per law.
2. To handover  lawful physical  possession  of the Flats 2A and 3A in the Apartment  “Suhasini” in favour of the Complainants;
3. To direct  the O.P. No. 1 and to handover /give lawful physical possession of the Flat in the Apartment “Suhasini” which  the Complainants are entitled to posses jointly with the OP No. 1 as per the condition mentioned at second para of page 9 under  the heading “First  Party’s  Allocated portion” of the  registered “Agreement for Development” Being No. 000586 for the year 2014;
4. For an order of compensation  of money in the tune  of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Complainants @ Rs. 15 lakhs each for causing unnecessary and intentional mental and undue harassments and agony caused to the Complainants during the years after years, as have been disclosed in the Complaint Case;
5. For all cost of the case, as may be directed by your Honour;
6. Such other relief or reliefs, to which  the Complainants, are legally and equitably entitled to.

3. The Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2  entered appearance  in this case and  were contested  the case by filing written version.
4. Subsequently, the Revisionists/Petitioners filed an application challenging the maintainability of  the complaint case.
5. Ld. District Commission was pleased to dispose of the said  maintainability application by the order impugned.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Revisionists/Petitioners have preferred this Revisional Application.
7. Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists/Petitioners and  on careful perusal of the record, memo of revision petition and other documents.
8. Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists/ Petitioners  and on perusal of the record, it appears to me that the Revisionists/Petitioners filed an application challenging the maintainability  of the case  on the ground that  the subject matter of  dispute is absolutely beyond the scope and ambit  of this Learned District Commission and Complainants/Respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed the Consumer Case with an absolute ulterior motive to harass the Opposite Party No. 1 in any manner  possible  and gain wrongfully and well as  describing some facts in the said petition.
9. I think that the points as mentioned the application challenging  the maintainability  of the case  are mixed question of law and facts as it depended  on the  determination of the issue of the present Complaint Case. The said mixed question of law are to be decided  after taking evidence  of both the parties. Record goes to show that the complaint case is at the stage of giving reply by the Complainant against the interrogatories filed by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, this fact clearly proves that the complaint case is on the verge of disposal.
10. Under this facts and circumstances, I hold that the Ld. District Commission has rightly held that the question of  maintainability which has been raised by the Opposite Parties  by  petition, the same  is to be heard alongwith the trial of the case.  Therefore, I find that there is no incorrectness, illegality  and improperty in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.
11. Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists in support of his argument  has relied  upon the decision reported  in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3335. However, reliance of the judgement in the adjudication  of this matter, facts being at variance,  would be misplaced.
12. In view of the above matter, I hold that the order of the Ld. District Commission below should not be disturbed.  Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the Revision Petition is without any merit.  It is, therefore, dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.
13. The Ld. District Commission is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the either  of the parties.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Hooghly for information at once.
15. Office to comply.