SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER

The instant Revision Petition has been  filed by the Revisionist/the OP  questioning the propriety of order No. 24 dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission, Kolkata Unit-II (Central) in CC/379/2019 Order No. 24 dated 02.02.2023 is reproduced as under:

“Today is fixed for hearing  argument.

None is present for the complainant on  call. Ld. Advocate for the OP   is present and she submits that an application has been filed by the OP on 28.11.2022 with the prayer  for passing an order of personal appearance of the complainant with original documents and the same is pending for hearing.

It appears that no copy of the application has been served upon the complainant and the said application was filed by the OP on  28.11.2022 by put  up petition.  Moreover, the application  is not in proper form and as such, the same cannot be entertained.

Fix13.04.2023 for hearing argument. BNA as per C.P. Regulation. The OP may file appropriate application on the  above in the meantime.”

Ld. Advocate for  the Revisionist  has submitted that the complainant or her  constituted  power of attorney  did not  appear  at  stretch for consecutive  dates fixed for argument since 16^th June, 2022 and the District Commission has come  to an erroneous inference that the complainant, in spite of not appearing on consecutive  occasion before the  Ld.   District Commission since 16^th June, 2022, was supposed to be dismissed for default for non-appearance  of the complainant on three consecutive dates, but  a later date  was again fixed for argument on 13.04.2023. The  Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate that the complaint was filed only with an objective to earn financial gain and the OP ought not be directed to pay compensation for harassment or mental agony of the complainant as there was no harassment meted out.

Due to  non-appearance of the   complainant or his pleader or even his constituted power of attorney since 16^th June, 2022, the complainant might not have any  existence at all and thus, it was  imperative to  order for personal appearance or identification of the  complaint before the Ld.  District Commission to proceed with the case smoothly for the ends of justice.  Instead of dismissing the case for  default for non-appearance of the complainant and  her  pleader or her  constituted power of attorney since 16^th June, 2022 Ld. District Commission has ordered another future date on 13.04.2023. Hence Revision Petition.

Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has further submitted that the complainant in the  instant complaint   petition alleges that the Revisionist/OP  did not pay any  attention or heed to the various attempts to contact the Revisionist/OP and was reluctant to  respond  to their attempts  at contacting him. The complainant  lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, South 24 Pargans registered office dated 21.08.2018 vide  a Complaint Index No. SR/C/18-19/190.  But this complaint made before the Assistant director CA & FBP lacks the basic  locus standi as the son of complainant namely, Asit Baran Mondal had no pending dues in his lifetime to the Revisionist, nor had  any monetary or similar demands to  him whatsoever.

 Since there is no pending, the  said agreement  for sale stood ineffective and  void in the eyes of law in the event of death of the son of the complainant being one of the parties to the  agreement.  In spite  of the same, the complainant still  filed the  instant complaint before the Ld. District Commission. In support  of her contention, Ld. Advocate for  the  Revisionist drew our attention  by showing running Page 25  of the Revision petition. Running  Page 25 shows the money receipts  signed by Asit Baran Mondal  (since deceased)  towards receiving a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Revisionist/OP as refund of   advance amount  as paid by the Asit Baran Mondal for purchasing the entire  ground  floor of the premises in question.

Hence,  she prays for passing interim order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission in the complaint case No. 379/2019 be set aside  and the complaint be dismissed or to remand back  the case   with a direction to hear the matter on merits and dispose  of the matter on merit, after taking expert opinion  accordingly.

Upon hearing the  Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Revisionist and  on  perusal of the   record, particularly  Order No. 24 dated 02.02.2023 passed by  the Ld. District Commission  it appears that no application   has been served upon the complainant and the said application was filed by the OP/Revisionist on 28.11.2022 by put up petition. Moreover, the Ld. District Commission has  observed that the  application  is not in  proper  form and as such, the same cannot be  entertained.

We think it is necessary to serve the petition to other side before hearing of the same. The copy of the application has not  been served by the OP/Revisionist. Whether the application is in  proper form or not we cannot pass any comment since the Revisionist has not filed the application  which was not entertained  by the Ld. DCDRC concerned.

 Apart from this, the Ld.  District Commission has not rejected the application rather  the Ld. DCDRC has not entertained  the application since the application is not in proper form and the same is not served to other side. Therefore, we find no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the Ld. District Commission, Kolkata Umit-II.   

Accordingly this the  Revision Petition  filed by the Revisionist/OP,  is dismissed in limine being not admitted.

No order as to costs.

The Revision Petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Note  in the register.  

Office is directed to send  a copy of the order  to the  LD. District Commission, Kolkata Unit-II(Central) at once.