IMPORTANT POINT
Cause of Action – Inasmuch as cause of action is well discernible from the facts and materials against the revision petitioner in terms of his role as the land owner of the property that has been subjected to joint venture development.

ORDER

R. Subbiah, President—Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed the main case in C.C. No. 65 of 2020 before the DCDRC, Chennai-North, alleging service deficiency against the Flat Promoter-Opposite Party, who is R3 herein and, during the pendency of the main case, the Promoter/OP took out a miscellaneous petition in CMP No. 115 of 2018, seeking to implead the Revision Petitioner herein as the 2nd OP and, by its order, dated 07.09.2022, the District Commission has allowed the said CMP and, challenging the said order, the impleaded 2nd OP has come up with the present Revision.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner endeavours to assail the impugned order on three counts.

Firstly, the impugned order was passed behind the back of the revision petitioner as he was not served with any Notice. Only after receiving the Notice in CMP No. 36 of 2022 for amending the cause title, he came to know of the order under challenge. Thereupon, from Kerala, where he resides, the revision petitioner took steps to get certified copy of the impugned order and has now filed the present Revision. As there is a gross violation of the basic principles of natural justice that the other side should be heard before passing any order in consonance with the legal maxim ‘audi alteram partem’, the impugned order has no legs to stand.

Secondly, when it is the prerogative of the Complainants/dominus litus to choose or implead the opponent and there being no scope for an OP to propose a party and to seek his/her impleadment, the District Commission ought not to have entertained the implead petition that was taken out by the OP, who has no locus standi at all to file the same; as such, the impugned order is rendered inherently erroneous.

Thirdly, there is no cause of action against the revision petitioners and they are not at all necessary parties for the purpose of adjudication of the main complaint. In as much as the District Commission failed to appreciate the said factum by properly sifting the facts and it acted in al hurried manner, there cannot be any justification to sustain the order in question.

3. Learned Counsels appearing for the Respondents support the impugned order and seek for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

4. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf the parties and perusing the materials made available, this Commission finds no good reason to entertain the plea of the Revision Petition for more than one reason.

The primary grievance of the revision petitioner that Notice was not issued and the impugned order came to be passed by the District Commission without hearing him has become obsolete now, for the reason, he has already submitted himself to the impugned order by entering appearance in the main case as 2nd OP. It is reported that he also filed his side written version and started contesting the proceedings. Had he come to this Commission soon after collecting the impugned order without doing what he has actually done, then, there is a solid basis for him to project the point and a scope for this Commission also to consider the same. Since the action of the revision petitioner speaks contrary to his stand & grievance and the point is also now rendered superfluous, he cannot press it anymore.

Further, there is no quarrel over the position that the Complainant/dominus litus alone has the prerogative to choose his opponent and that an OP cannot seek to implead anybody as a proposed party that too against the wishes of the Complainant. This Commission itself has emphatically reiterated so in the order, dated 30.08.2024, passed in R.P. No. 142 of 2023, which is heavily relied upon by the revision petitioner. But here, it is not the case that the Complainants have ever objected to or they have any objection for the impleadment of the revision petitioner. In fact, the Complainants themselves sail in the same boat along with the original OP for the one single purpose of impleading the revision petitioner and, in such a situ