PER: HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The instant Revisional Application under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Complainant to assail the Order No.12 dated 25.07.2017 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 67/2017.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum rejected the application filed by the Revisionist/Complainant under Order-6 Rule-17 of C.P. Code for amendment of petition of complaint.

          The Revisionist being Complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the Opposite Parties before the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services for not executing and registering the Deed of Conveyance and for non-obtaining Completion Certificate etc. in respect of one shop room measuring about 210 sq. ft. on the ground floor at Premises No. 20A, Hazra Road, P.S.- Bhowanipore,  Kolkata – 700026 in a dispute of housing construction.  After entered appearance, the opposite party nos. 2 & 4 and opposite party nos. 5 & 6 have filed written versions and contesting the case.  The complainant has already tendered evidence through affidavit against which questionnaires have been set up by the contesting OPs to which replies have to be filed by the complainant.  At that juncture, the complainant has filed the application for amendment of the petition of complaint. 

             After hearing both sides, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order rejected the said application, which prompted the complainant to come up in this Commission with the instant revision petition.

            Mr. Sibaji Sankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has arrived at a wrong decision by rejecting the application because the propose amendment would not change the nature and character of the dispute.  He has submitted that the OP Nos. 1 to 4 are the landowners and OP Nos. 5 & 6 are developer and in the petition of complaint in several places OP No.2 has mentioned as developer and keeping in view of the same, the Ld. District Forum should have allowed the application.

          Per contra, Mr. S.M. Rakshit, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties has contended that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in dismissing the complaint because the proposed amendment would change the basic structure of the complaint and when there is scope for filing a complaint afresh in respect of same cause of action, the impugned order should not be interfered with. 

         We have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and seen the materials on record.

          On perusal of petition of complaint, it appears that the complainant has lodged the complaint against six persons in a dispute of housing construction out of which OP Nos. 1 to 4 are the landowners and OP No.5 is a private limited company to which OP No.6 is the Director.  However, in Paragraph-3, the complainant has mentioned that the OP No.1 is the landowner and OP No.2 is the developer, who entered into a Development Agreement dated 04.04.2007.  In Paragraph Nos.4, 5, 7, 10, 13 and in several other places of the petition of complaint,, the complainant categorised OP No.2 as the developer.  On inspection, we find that in number of places in the petition of complaint, the complainant has made same mistake.

          In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum has observed that if the amendment is accepted, it will cause prejudice to the other side, particularly when the evidence of the complainant is already over.  In fact, complainant had opportunity to ‘not pressed’ the petition of complaint and to file a complaint afresh after removing the defects.

          The revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission flows from Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, which runs as under:-

          “to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”.  

          The above provision makes it quite clear that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this Commission is limited only to the extent of jurisdictional error or material irregularity in passing the order impugned.  Admittedly, there is no jurisdictional error on the face of the record. Equally, we do not find any material irregularity in passing the order impugned because when the hearing has already begun and the complainant has tendered evidence to which questionnaire has been filed, any amendment of petition of complaint in such a scale will cause serious prejudice to the other side.

          In view of the above, when we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in passing the order impugned, the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

          Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III for information.