IMPORTANT POINT
District Fora, State Commission and National Commission are competent to entertain application for amendment and impleadment of parties.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in CC No. CC/02/401 – Keshav Nidhi Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. Mr. Mooljee Lukmidas & Ors. by which, application for impleadment of parties was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/Complainant filed complaint before the learned State Commission against OP / M/s. Moolji Lukhmidas with a prayer to direct OP to complete the title to the property and pay Rs.19.95 lakhs towards additional payment of stamp duty, registration charges, etc. Later on, complainant moved application for amendment of the complaint with a prayer to permit him to implead OP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and insert paragraphs 9A and 9B in the complaint with the consequential amendment in the prayer clause. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed aforesaid application vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission had no power to allow application for amendment and further submitted that OP No. 2, OP No.3/Petitioner and OP No.4 are not necessary parties, even then, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing amendment application and impleading OPs in the complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted that learned State Commission had power to allow amendment application and rightly impleaded OP Nos. 2,3 & 4 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. The core question to be decided in this revision petition is whether; the State Commission has power to allow application for amendment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has no power in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.1 In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that District Fora/State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside the ex-parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised. Section 22-A of the Consumer Protection Act, which was inserted on 15.3.2003 has vested power of review or recall the orders, only to the National Commission and it appears that, as this power has been restricted only to the National Commission, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment held that District Fora/State Commissions cannot exercise this power. In the aforesaid judgment, it has nowhere been mentioned that power to amend the complaint or implead parties (interim order) cannot be passed by District Forum or the State Commission. Section 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act runs as under:

“(3B) Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

Perusal of this provision clearly indicates that District Fora and the State Commissions have also been enabled to pass interim orders, as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Application for amendment of the pleadings as well as impleadment of parties is an interim order and if it is just and proper to avoid multiplicity of litigation and for proper adjudication of the case, such orders can be passed by District Fora/State Commissions. This Commission in R.P. No.2696 of 2011 M/s. Shyam Developers v. Girishikhar Building ‘A’ Co-op. Hsg. & Ors. has upheld order of impleadment of another