Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 14-10-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Alipurduar in C.C. No. 36/2014.

In short, case of the Revisionists is that, they filed a maintainability petition before the Ld. District Forum on territorial jurisdictional ground.  The said petition since being rejected by the Ld. District Forum, feeling aggrieved with such decision, they preferred this Revision.

Be it mentioned here that, out of the 4 Respondents, notice was duly served upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Notice sent to the Respondent No. 4 from this office was returned with the postal remark ‘not known’; attempt made by the Revisionist also drew a blank.  In such circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that Revisionists and Respondent No. 4 happen to be the same and identical company, no fresh notice was issued to it.

It appears from the impugned order that notice sent to the Respondent No. 4 in the complaint case was also returned with the postal remark “address is wrong”.  Yet, the Ld. District Forum thrashed the petition filed on behalf of the Revisionists holding inter alia that it was at a premature stage to conclude that the address of the Respondent No. 4, as given in the cause title, was a fake one.

It is the cardinal principle of law that notice must be duly served upon all parties concerned before proceeding an inch with the case in hand.  We are totally at a loss, how could the Ld. District Forum decide the fate of the maintainability petition of the Revisionists without first ensuring proper service of notice upon the Respondent No. 4. No doubt, it was akin to putting the cart before the horse.

Taking into consideration the fact that all attempts made hitherto to deliver notice upon the Respondent No. 4 proved futile, it squarely establishes the contention of the Revisionists that Respondent No. 4 has no existence at the given address. 

In fact, there is nothing to show that cause of action of the instant complaint arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum or any of the Revisionists or Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resided, or carried out business or had a branch office, or personally worked for gain in Alipurduar district. Clearly, the Ld. District Forum overstepped its terms of reference which is not desirable.

The Respondent No. 1 has not put forth any cogent documentary proof  to nullify the allegation of the Revisionists.  Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, it seems that with the sole intention of invoking the local jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, the Respondent No. 1 resorted to falsehood – a clear pointer of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 did not approach the Ld. District Forum with clean hands.  This is highly condemnable.

We are, therefore, inclined to allow this Revision.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Revision stands allowed ex parte against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is set aside.  Consequent thereof, the complaint case stands dismissed being not maintainable.  Respondent No. 1 is, however, given due liberty to agitate her case before the appropriate Forum within 40 days hence, if she so desires.