JUDGMENT

This revision petition is at the instance of

the revisionists / petitioners and is directed against the order No. 18 dated 31/08/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with Misc. application No. 333/2019 arising out of complaint case No. CC/442/2018. One Ashok Kumar Deb, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3 herein filed a complaint case being No. CC/442/2018 before the Learned District Commission praying for the following reliefs:—

“a) An order directing the O.P. Nos. 1 to 17 to refund the balance amount of Rs.7,18,440/- (Rupees Seven Lac Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty)

only.

b) Compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac) only for causing mental pain and agony of the complainant due to the deficiency of service as promised to be rendered to the complainant by the O.P. No.1 to 17 and for unfair trade & practice by the O.P. Nos. 1 to 17.

c) Costs of the proceedings

d) Any other relief and reliefs as the complainant is entitled under the law and equity.”

2. The petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest i.e. the opposite party No. 12 entered into the case and filed written version on 06/08/2019. On 10/12/2019 the petitioners’ predecessor –in-interest i.e. the opposite party No. 2 filed an application being No.M.A./333/2019 seeking expunge of her name from the said complaint case being No.CC/442/2018. The Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the said M.A. application being No.M.A./333/2019 filed by the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest i.e. opposite party No. 12 by the order impugned.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

with the said order the petitioners / revisionists have preferred this instant revisional application.

4. Heard Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists at length and in full.

5. Perused the revisional application, memo of revision petition and other relevant documents and judgments cited by the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners / revisionists and on careful perusal of the record and the materials available on record it appears to me that the opposite party No. 2, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had interest and made agreement with the complainant. But the then complainant, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 was allegedly cheated by the promoter who without building the project fled away after taking the money of the predecessor –in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 i.e. the complainant Ashok Kumar Deb.

7. Now, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 wants back the money which was given by their predecessor-in-interest, since the project was uncertain.

8. It also appears to me that the said money was taken by the promoter at the time of the first agreement when admittedly the opposite party No. 12, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a party to the said agreement. Whether the alleged amalgamation of different plots was illegal and beyond the knowledge of the opposite party No. 12 or not, I think that will be considered at the time of hearing and taking evidence of both sides. The opposite party

No. 12 i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners / revisionists was a party of the agreement after cancellation of the first

agreement between the parties or not, that will be considered after taking evidence of both sides.

9. In the result, I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly held that the presence of the opposite party No. 12 i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners / revisionists was necessary to reach the just decision of the case. The opposite party No. 2 was not unnecessarily made party of this case. After giving due consideration to the submission made by the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists / petitioners and on scrutiny of the materials on record I do not