No. 8/12.03.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Sri H. Bramhachari, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Rupak Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5 through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Heard Mr. Bramhachari, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant as also the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents.  The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant first contends that the compensation has been wrongly allowed against his client as faults alleged in the complaint and found proved, are all of the developers and not of the landowner.  The second contention of Mr. Bramhachari is that the agreement was filed before the Forum below late and not at the initiation of the proceeding.  The last contention of Mr. Bramhachari is that the agreement has been signed by two partners but the other partners has been added as a party in the proceeding and, therefore, the proceeding itself is irregular.  Upon hearing the parties we find that Mr. Bramhachari appearing for the Appellant has taken a very fair view as regards the responsibility to complete the job including the execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance but as the Appellant and the Developers were sailing in the same boat, the Respondent No. 1 – Complainant suffered because of the conduct of the O.Ps.  In this connection we take notice of the fact that Forum below acted rightly in giving direction No. (i) upon only developers as completion of the unfinished work is the responsibility of the developers only.  In the circumstances we find that the Forum below in passing the impugned judgement has taken note of the situation and, therefore, we do not find any irregularity in this respect.  As regards the late filing of the Agreement we do not find any irregularity in this respect as document if filed before the Forum below before the final judgement is passed and it is accepted by the Forum below, there is no irregularity particularly when this proceeding is not adversarial proceeding and mere technicality must not be considered for the purpose holding a judgement as irregular.  In respect of the third contention of Mr. Bramhachari, we find that the third partner, who has been added as a party to the proceeding though not a signatory in the Agreement is not disputed as a partner of the developer firm.  Therefore, if the two partners put signature having due authority making the other partner a party in the proceeding does not render the proceeding irregular.

There being no other point taken and contentions of the Appellant having been dealt with as aforesaid appeal fails and, therefore, dismissed.  The judgement of the lower Forum is hereby affirmed.