STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/6/RP/74/2023 CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL HARYANA CIRCLE AMBALA PRESENT ADDRESS - CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL HARYANA CIRCLE AMBALA,HARYANA.

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POSTAL SERVICE MAIN POST OFFICE ROHTAK PRESENT ADDRESS - SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POSTAL SERVICES, MAIN POST OFFICE, ROHTAK ,HARYANA.

HEAD POST MASTER PRESENT ADDRESS - HEAD POST MASTER, MAIN POST OFFICE, BAHADURGARH DISTRICT JHAJJAR,HARYANA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus PARVEEN S/O DILBAG PRESENT ADDRESS - RESIDENT PELPA, TEHSIL BADLI DISTRICT JHAJJAR,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MS. VEENA BHUTANI SETHI, COUNSEL FOR THE REVISIONISTS.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. HARKARAN SINGH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

DATED: 20/01/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 26.09.2023 Date of final hearing: 20.01.2026 Date of Order: 20.01.2026 Revision Petition No.74 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle Ambala-133001 (Department of Post & Telegraph), Govt. of India.

2. Senior Superintendent of Postal Services, Main Post Office Rohtak, (Department of Post & Telegraph), Govt. of India.

3. Head Postmaster, Main Post Office Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, (Department of Post & Telegraph), Govt. of India.

...Revisionists Versus Parveen S/o Sh. Dilbag, Resident of Pelpa, Tehsil Badli, District Jhajjar.

…..Respondent CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER.

Present:- Ms. Veena Bhutani Sethi, counsel for the revisionists.

Mr. Harkaran Singh, counsel for the respondent.

ORDER

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Instant revision petition arise from the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Jhajjar (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in the application filed by OP No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading Surender Singh S/o Jage Ram, as necessary party in the consumer complaint No. 256 of 2019, vide which learned District Commission has dismissed the said application.

2. The short facts of the case is that during the pendency of the consumer complaint No. 259 of 2019, OP No.2/revisionists filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Surender Singh S/o Jage Ram, the then Branch Post Master posted at Post Office at a relevant time, as a party in the consumer complaint No. 256 of 2019 on the ground that there was a settlement between complainant and said Surinder Singh. When the matter came to knowledge of Higher Authority, then an enquiry was held against Surinder Singh and FIR No. 305 dated 09.05.2018 under Section 409 & 420 IPC was registered in Police Station Jhajjar against Mr. Surender Singh.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission in the application filed by the revisionists, this Commission has observed that revisionists did not present any plea to demonstrate how the impleadment of Surinder Singh was necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the complaint. Complainant being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to litigate against any person as party in his complaint. Revisionists/OPs are at liberty to take objection regarding mis-joinder of necessary party in their written version and such objections can be decided by the learned District Consumer Commission during the proceedings. Thus, learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the application filed by revisionists. Impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission is hereby affirmed, maintained and upheld.

Present revision of revisionists, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

4. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

5. Copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Con