IMPORTANT POINT
Impleading of necessary party – At any stage – It is a settled principle of Law that impleading of necessary party can be added at any stage even suo moto or on the application of wither party or even on the application of a person which is not a party to the case if it is necessary party to decide the controversy in dispute.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, President.—The petitioner-M/s Tiwari Global Infrastructure Limited has filed the present Revision Petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.145 of 2021 titled as “Sanjay Vasudeva Vs. Tiwari Global Infrastructure Limited & another”.

2. The complainant-Sanjay Vasudeva filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Commission, Amritsar with the allegations that he purchased a plot bearing No.238 measuring 300 square yard from M/s Tiwari Global Infrastructure Limited and was issued allotment letter dated 03.01.2007. Colonizer projected the Colony to be best for living purposes and promised to provide all the facilities. The complainant started making payment in installments. After a period of one year, the complainant alongwith his wife visited the site and found that there was no development in the colony. He visited a number of occasions by approaching the OPs to get plot registered in his name. The promised development activities were also not done and instead of doing the same he was asked by the colonizer to pay the balance adding interest on interest vide letter dated 30.05.2015. It was further mentioned in the complaint that he was harassed at the hands of OPs and by adopting the fraudulent manipulation, the Colony was not developed well in time.

3. Said complaint was filed for issuance of directions to the OPs to refund the amount so deposited i.e. Rs.5,58,600/- with interest and also to pay compensation for causing pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered at the hands of colonizer/OP.

4. Vide order dated 05.02.2019 the said complaint was relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Aggrieved by said order dated 05.02.2019, First Appeal No.156 of 2019 filed by the complainant was allowed and First Appeal No.166 of 2019 filed by OP No.1 was disposed of and the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 was set aside, vide order dated 22.02.2021 by this Commission. The matter was remanded back to the District Commission, Amritsar with the direction to decide the complaint afresh on merits after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if any, in support of their contentions and hearing the same in accordance with law but preferably within a period of three months. The District Commission was also directed to issue notice to respondent No.2/OP No.2 who was exparte before the State Commission before deciding the complaint afresh. The contesting parties through counsel were directed to appear before the District Commission on 30.03.2021.

5. The District Commission took up the complaint for hearing as per remand order. The complainant-Sanjay Vasudeva moved an application before the District Commission for adding of name of Smt. Yadvinder Vasudeva w/o complainant-Sh. Sanjay Vasudeva as complainant No.2 in the complaint and also in addition to that to add word complainants instead of complainant. It was mentioned that the complainant-Sanjay Vasudeva and his wife Yadvinder Vasudeva being a unit of family be mentioned in the body of the complaint as the common cause of action arose to both of them.

6. Notice of the application was issued to OP No.1, who raised preliminary objection that the application was an abuse of process of law and it was moved just to delay the proceedings. It was further submitted that application moved by the complainant could not be allowed as there was no such provisions under the Act. It was also pleaded on behalf of OP No.1 that the State Commission while remanding the case had given a specific order and keeping in view the order passed by the State Commission, the application could not be allowed. Said application was allowed and complainant was directed to file amended complaint within two effective adjournments. In case the complainant failed to file amended complaint, his r