Order No.2                          Dated:30/03/2023

The complainants / petitioner are present in person.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party appears today by filing vakalatnama and prays for adjournment.

Heard both side.

Prayer for adjournment is considered and rejected.

The complainant no.1 submits that the opposite party has not taken any steps to obtain completion certificate from the concerned Panihati Municipality. As such, the Chairman, Panihati Municipality be added as party to this case.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party raised strong objection against the prayer of the complainants.

 On perusal of the material on record we find that the opposite party already filed w/v in CC/86/2021 and stated that the concerned Panihati Municipality is not in working condition since long as its Board has been dissolved. Due to such, the opposite party cannot provide completion certificate of the premises in question.

It is needless to say that the burden of proof lies upon the opposite party to prove his case. As it is bound in duty of the opposite party to provide completion certificate to the complainant in respect of the premises in question and that can be brought on record by way of evidence.

In our considered view, the Chairman, Panihati Municipality is not required to be added as opposite party at this stage. Therefore, the Misc. Application is not liable to be allowed and stands dismissed without cost.

Thus the Misc. Application is disposed of.