The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The petitioners have filed the present revisional application against the order dated December 3, 2021 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Siliguri in Consumer Case No. CC/10/2020 (Smt. Mira Devi Agarwal vs. Sri Mohny Soorma & Ors).

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are developers. They have constructed ground plus four storied building consisting of 64 flats along with parking spaces. The petitioners had entered into agreements with the opposite parties on August 6, 2012 and August 22, 2015 in respect of three flats at a settled consideration. The opposite parties had paid a part of such consideration at the time of the execution of the agreement. The opposite parties had failed to pay the balance consideration within the time agreed. Consequently, upon the failure of the opposite parties to pay the agreed consideration, the agreements dated August 6, 2012 and August 22, 2015 stood terminated.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioners had filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Siliguri, against the opposite parties being Title Suit No. 14 of 2019, praying for a decree of declaration that the agreement dated August 6, 2012 and August 22, 2015 were terminated on the failure of the opposite parties paying the agreed consideration within the time stipulated.

4. The opposite parties had filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being Consumer Case No. 10 of 2020 for enforcing the agreements dated August 6, 2012 and August 22, 2015. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Consumer Case No. 10 of 2020. The learned Commission had by the impugned order dated December 3, 2021 rejected the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the application of the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a proceeding under the Act of 1986 is not barred. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 1999 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 406 (Sovintorg (India) Ltd. vs. State Bank Of India, New Delhi).

6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has relied upon Section 13 (4) of the Act of 1986 and Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

He has relied upon 1999 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 710 (Industrial Credit And Investment Corporation Of India Ltd. vs. Grapco Industries Ltd. And Others) and 1999 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 755 (Allahabad Bank Calcutta vs. Radha Krishna Maity And Others) and submitted that, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable in a proceeding under the Act of 1986.

7. Referring to Section 13(4) of the Act of 1986 and 2005 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 321 (Canara Bank vs. V. K. Awasthy), learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the principles of natural justices are applicable to a proceeding under the Act of 1986.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a pre res judicata stage as envisaged in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He has relied upon 2011 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 408 (M. Nagabhushana vs. State Of Karnataka And Others) with regard to the principles of res judicata. He has also relied upon 2021 SCC Online SC 1182 (Manohar Infrastructure And Constructions Private Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors.) for the proposition that at the time of considering an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1986 generally principles mentioned under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are required to be considered.

According to him, even though specific pr