The instant Revision Petition Under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘) is at the instance of opposite Party No.5  Shri Samit Dutta to  assail the order no.02 dated 20.11.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - III ( for short, Ld. District  Forum ) in  MA/88/2017 arising out of consumer complaint no.182/2017 whereby the application filed by  Opposite Party No.5/ Revisionist to expunge his name  from the cause title  of the petition of complaint was rejected.

        The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 herein being complainants lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum U/s. 12 of the Act against a construction company named Sribhumi Realty Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1)  and its Directors  ( OP Nos. 2 to 5 ) on the allegation of deficiency of services on the part of OPs with prayer for several reliefs, viz – (a )  to refund  Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the booking amount paid to OP No.1 along with interest @ 10 % p.a.; (b) compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony ; (c) litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- etc.

        After entered appearance, the OP No.5/revisionist by filing a written version resisted the claim of the complainant and prayed for expunging his name from the cause title of the petition of complaint. Simultaneously, OP No.5 also filed an application being MA/88/2017 stating that he has been wrongly and incorrectly implicated in this case because due to personal problem and inconvenience he resigned from the OP No.1 company and sent a resignation letter to the Board of Directors of OP No.1 company on 23.06.2014 and the said resignation letter has been accepted by a Board meeting held on 01.07.2014. Therefore, the OP No.5 has made a prayer to strike off his name from the cause title of the petition of complaint.

        However, by the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum rejected the application filed by OP No.5 which prompted the OP No.5 to prefer the instant revision petition.

        I have given due consideration to the submission made by Mr. Pratyush Sarkar and Mr. Niladri Banerjee, Ld. Advocates appearing for the petitioner/revisionist as well as OP No.1/complainant of the case.

        The whole issue centres around for consideration as to whether the revisionist /petitioner, who have been arrayed as OP No.5 will be excluded /deleted from the obligation of performing any part of contract on behalf of OP No.1 company.

         The facts which are necessary for appreciation of the instant revision petition are that the OP No.1 herein being a ‘Consumer’ approached the Opposite Party No .