This is an order arising out of a petition no. 270 dtd.27.9.2021 filed by the opp.party no.2 (The Managing Director of the Housing Development  Finance  Corporation Ltd.) for striking out  of his name . It is submitted in the petition that no relief is sought for  against the opp.party no.2 and it is not a case of the complainant that no effective order can be passed in his absence. It is submitted further  that opp.pary no. 2  is not the necessary party in the present proceeding and prayed for striking off his name from this proceeding . Reference of a   case law of the Hon’ble  Apex Court has been made Kasturi -vs- Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 supreme court cases  733. The opp.party no. 2 pray for striking off his name from this proceeding and to pass necessary order etc.

      At the instant of filing such  a petition the complainant has filed  written objection stating that he had not admitted averment made in the petition by the opp.pary no.2. It is further  submitted that petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. It is  specifically mentioned that relief has been claimed against the opp.party no.2 in the Consumer Complaint petition.

     It is further mentioned in the written objection that admittedly op.partyno.2 is the director of op.pary no.1 and hence as the chief officer of the opp.party no.1 , it is their prerogative to know how the opp.party no. 1  is working to deal with the consumers. According to the complainant,  op.party no.2 is in the best position to provide information to the parties in dispute.

     The  contesting complainant/ objector made para wise  comment on several issue  pertaining to the fact that the local authority have not sufficient knowledge to provide to the consumer without support from the opp.party no.2. However, the matter of unfair-trade-practice is the allegation and in that case op.party no. 2 is a necessary party and specifically the complainant  submits that relief is claimed against opp.party no.2. As opp.party no.2  is a necessary party as the managing director and had every knowledge  the day to day  affair of the company. As such, it is  vehemently argued  that question of striking out of the name of opp.party no.2 at this stage does not arises.

     We have  heard learned counsel appearing for the opp.party no.2 who submits that participation of the opp.party no.2 is not necessary  and his absence  in proceeding  may continue. As grievances are raised or relief   sought  from the branch manager of Khanapara branch who have already arrayed as opp.party  no. 3 , it is further argued that all the transaction and signature on the documents are made by the opp.party no.3 the op.party no. 2 is no way connected with such transaction and is not a necessary party .

    Learned counsel for the opp.party no. 2 argued that all the affairs of the banking company has been conducted by op.party no.1 & 3. The Managing Director staying at Head Quarter is not a necessary party and in his absence  proceeding may be continued.

     But , our humble opinion is that since opp.party no. 2 being the managing director of the bank  is   a necessary party and relief has been claimed against him, at this stage,  the question of striking out of his name does not arise. Accordingly , petition no. 270 dtd.27.9.2021 filed by the opp.party no.2 (The Managing Director of the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.) is  found without merit and rejected.