Kalyani Mukherjee, Kolkata Vs. Sankar Mukherjee, Kolkata and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1147823
CourtWest Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided OnApr-09-2014
Case NumberS.C. Case No.RP/149 of 2012 (Arisen Out of Order Dated 18.09.2012 in Case No. CC/115 of 2012 District South 24 Parganas DF)
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER
AppellantKalyani Mukherjee, Kolkata
RespondentSankar Mukherjee, Kolkata and Another
Excerpt:
debasis bhattacharya, member being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the ld. district forum, south 24 parganas in case no. 115/2012, by which the prayer petition of the revisionist for impleading her a party in the case has been rejected, giving rise for her revision. in such prayer petition, she made out that the complainant claimed himself as an owner of two-third share in such premises by his alleged purchase, which property is still unpartitioned and sub judice in the civil court at howrah, and thus hit the principle of lis pendens. the complainant is still a tenant and enjoying uninterrupted supply of electricity for his tenanted premises from the meter standing in the name of maya devi. he initiated t.s. no. 2307/2010 before the ld. 2nd court of civil judge (junior division) at alipore on the same cause of action and reliefs and obtained an ex parte interim order dated 11.08.2010, against which she preferred misc. appeal no. 486/2010, which was disposed by the ld. 15th additional district judge at alipore by order dated 11.01.2011 on consent and in compliance thereof she ensures 24 hours uninterrupted supply of electricity and water to the complainant, for which the complainant is paying monthly electric charges to the c.e.s.c. ltd. the complainant by suppressing material facts with malafide and evil design and also to misguide the ld. forum, has instituted the complaint case without impleading her as a party to the proceeding, and has thus practiced fraud upon the ld. forum. accordingly, for proper and effective adjudication of the case, she be impleaded as op no.2. in the w.o., the complainant has made out that she is not a necessary party in the complaint case as no service is sought from her and she will not be prejudiced. it is to be considered if there is any lacuna in the form of irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order, requiring interference therein, or not. decision with reasons. ld. advocate for the revisionist has submitted that the entire allegation in the complaint case has been levelled against this revionist, but she is not made a party thereof, and also by the impugned order she has been denied right to say in the matter. he has relied upon a decision of the honble national commission reported in ii (2013) cpj 545 (nc) in which it was held that a person may be added as a party to suit, even though he is not a necessary party and no relief is claimed against him, if his presence is necessary for complete and final decision of questions involved in suit, and such person is called proper party as distinguished from necessary party. ld. advocate for the op no.1 have submitted that the complainant is owner of the ground floor, and so a co-owner. the name of this revisionist occurred in the petition of complaint as because she has been creating obstruction everywhere in getting electricity exclusively by the complainant from the c.e.s.c. ltd., but the meter board position is the exclusive property of the c.e.s.c. ltd. ld. advocate for the op no.2 has said that in this private dispute between the parties, it has nothing to opine. considering all facts and circumstances of the case, more so in view of the dictum of the honble national commission in such a matter, as reflected in the citation referred on the side of the revisionist, it would be reasonable and proper to add the revisionist as a proper party in the complaint case for a proper and full adjudication of the case. the impugned order is not a befitting one. in the result, the revision succeeds. hence, ordered that the revision be and same is allowed on contest against the ops. the impugned order is set aside. the prayer petition of the revisonist for adding her as op is allowed.
Judgment:

Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Case No. 115/2012, by which the prayer petition of the Revisionist for impleading her a party in the case has been rejected, giving rise for her revision.

In such prayer petition, she made out that the Complainant claimed himself as an owner of two-third share in such premises by his alleged purchase, which property is still unpartitioned and sub judice in the Civil Court at Howrah, and thus hit the principle of lis pendens. The Complainant is still a tenant and enjoying uninterrupted supply of electricity for his tenanted premises from the meter standing in the name of Maya Devi. He initiated T.S. No. 2307/2010 before the Ld. 2nd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore on the same cause of action and reliefs and obtained an ex parte interim order dated 11.08.2010, against which she preferred Misc. Appeal No. 486/2010, which was disposed by the Ld. 15th Additional District Judge at Alipore by order dated 11.01.2011 on consent and in compliance thereof she ensures 24 hours uninterrupted supply of electricity and water to the Complainant, for which the complainant is paying monthly electric charges to the C.E.S.C. Ltd. The Complainant by suppressing material facts with malafide and evil design and also to misguide the Ld. Forum, has instituted the complaint case without impleading her as a party to the proceeding, and has thus practiced fraud upon the Ld. Forum. Accordingly, for proper and effective adjudication of the case, she be impleaded as OP No.2.

In the W.O., the Complainant has made out that she is not a necessary party in the complaint case as no service is sought from her and she will not be prejudiced.

It is to be considered if there is any lacuna in the form of irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order, requiring interference therein, or not. Decision with reasons.

Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that the entire allegation in the complaint case has been levelled against this Revionist, but she is not made a party thereof, and also by the impugned order she has been denied right to say in the matter. He has relied upon a decision of the Honble National Commission reported in II (2013) CPJ 545 (NC) in which it was held that a person may be added as a party to suit, even though he is not a necessary party and no relief is claimed against him, if his presence is necessary for complete and final decision of questions involved in suit, and such person is called proper party as distinguished from necessary party.

Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 have submitted that the Complainant is owner of the ground floor, and so a co-owner. The name of this Revisionist occurred in the petition of complaint as because she has been creating obstruction everywhere in getting electricity exclusively by the Complainant from the C.E.S.C. Ltd., but the meter board position is the exclusive property of the C.E.S.C. Ltd.

Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 has said that in this private dispute between the parties, it has nothing to opine.

Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, more so in view of the dictum of the Honble National Commission in such a matter, as reflected in the citation referred on the side of the Revisionist, it would be reasonable and proper to add the Revisionist as a proper party in the complaint case for a proper and full adjudication of the case. The impugned order is not a befitting one.

In the result, the revision succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the revision be and same is allowed on contest against the OPs. The impugned order is set aside. The prayer petition of the Revisonist for adding her as OP is allowed.