ORDER NO. 7 DT. 24.09.2009

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

          The present Revisional Application has been preferred against the Order No. 31 dt. 1.6.09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Hooghly in CDF Case No. 146/07 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Konnagar Sri Sri Kaibalya Nath Sangha (hence referred as Sangha) as party to the proceeding.

          The Complainants/Revisionists filed the consumer complaint case before the Ld. District Forum impleading Bank and others as Ops.  According to the Revisionists, similar application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by and on behalf of Sangha, but the same was considered and rejected by the District Forum.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dt. 1.6.09 the Revisionists have preferred the present Revisional Application on amongst the grounds of (1) Res judicata (2) Limitation (3) Ld. District Forum cannot sit over its own order inasmuch as once the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the Ld. District Forum, the subsequent order, i.e. impugned order dt. 1.6.09 is illegal/without jurisdiction and that (4) the impugned order being not signed by the President the same has got no legal force and is liable to be set aside.  And hence, the Revisional Application filed.

          The only moot question that revolves round the present Revision is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the impugned order.

          Case laws referred to on behalf of the Revisionists :-

(i)1987 (1) SCC 727, (ii) 1976 (4) SCC 66, (iii) 1996 (3) CPJ 87 and (iv) 2006 (3) CPJ 67.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Revisionists that Ld. Forum has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by passing the impugned order though previously similar/identical application was rejected by Ld. District Forum.  According to the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists, no Court/Forum is permitted to sit over its own order.  In this case, the Ld. District Forum having done so, the impugned order has got no legal basis and on this score alone the same is liable to be set aside.

          Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists has drawn our attention to the provisions of Regulation 14(iv) of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 wherein it has been provided, “The period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act, the rules of these regulations shall be thirty days from the date of the cause of action or the date of knowledge”.  According to the Ld. Advocate, in this case, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of an application which is hopelessly barred and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

          Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists has raised the point of Res judicata.  According to the Ld. Advocate, once the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the Ld. District Forum, there was no point in entertaining similar application at a later stage and allow the same as the same is clearly hit under the principles of Res judicata.

          Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists has further submitted that the impugned order being not signed by the President of the District Forum, it has got no legal force and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

          While concluding his submissions it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the impugned order is not sustainable on the point of law as well as on factual aspect also.  The same being passed without jurisdiction it should be set aside.

          We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Revisionists and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order and find that in this case initially an application was filed before the Ld. District Forum with a prayer to implead the Sangha as a party to the proceeding, which was rejected by the Ld. District Forum.  Subsequently, similar application was entertained and allowed by the Ld. District Forum.  Now on perusal of the materials on record we find that in this case Sangha is certainly the most interested party whose interest is seriously affected due to institution of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.  In this connection, we find much substance in the submissions put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Ops, according to whom, the first application was rejected as Sangha was not properly described etc.   Hence, there was no bar in filing another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in proper format, which was duly entertained and allowed by the Ld. District Forum.  In this connection, we are of considered opinion that the plea of Limitation/Res judicata raised by the Revisionists is not applicable.  When the Sangha is the most affected and aggrieved party, we think Ld. District Forum was justified in allowing the application Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC thereby ensuring proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties.  So far as it relates to the plea of non-signing of the impugned order by the President of the Forum etc., we are of the view that signing/non-signing of a particular order by the President of a Forum is the exclusive business of the Forum itself and for this the interest of a party should not be affected.  Hence, the plea taken by the Revisionists is not acceptable.

          From the foregoing discussions it has become evident that no illegal, irregular or without jurisdiction order was passed by the Ld. District Forum as claimed by the Revisionists.  We have duly perused the decision cited on behalf of the Revisionists.  But as the facts and circumstances of the present case is different from that of cited decisions, the principles laid down in those decisions are not applicable to the instant case.  Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is hereby affirmed.

          In the result, the Revisional Application fails.

          Hence,

                    Ordered

                    That the Revisional Application stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.  The impugned order is hereby confirmed.