AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission '') in CC No. CC/02/401 - Keshav Nidhi Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mooljee Lukmidas and Ors. by which, application for impleadment of parties was allowed.
BRIEF facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/Complainant filed complaint before the learned State Commission against OP / M/s. Moolji Lukhmidas with a prayer to direct OP to complete the title to the property and pay Rs.19.95 lakhs towards additional payment of stamp duty, registration charges, etc. Later on, complainant moved application for amendment of the complaint with a prayer to permit him to implead OP Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and insert paragraphs 9A and 9B in the complaint with the consequential amendment in the prayer clause. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed aforesaid application vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission had no power to allow application for amendment and further submitted that OP No. 2, OP No.3/Petitioner and OP No.4 are not necessary parties, even then, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing amendment application and impleading OPs in the complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted that learned State Commission had power to allow amendment application and rightly impleaded OP Nos. 2,3 and 4 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
THE core question to be decided in this revision petition is whether; the State Commission has power to allow application for amendment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has no power in the light of the judgment passed by Hon ''ble Apex Court in IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) - Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon ''ble Apex Court held that District Fora/State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside the ex-parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised. Section 22-A of the Consumer Protection Act, which was inserted on 15.3.2003 has vested power of review or recall the orders, only to the National Commission and it appears that, as this power has been restricted only to the National Commission, Hon ''ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment held that District Fora/State Commissions cannot exercise this power. In the aforesaid judgment, it has nowhere been mentioned that power to amend the complaint or implead parties (interim order) cannot be passed by District Forum or the State Commission. Section 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act runs as under: "(3B) Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ".
Perusal of this provision clearly indicates that District Fora and the State Commissions have also been enabled to pass interim orders, as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Application for amendment of the pleadings as well as impleadment of parties is an interim order and if it is just and proper to avoid multiplicity of litigation and for proper adjudication of the case, such orders can be passed by District Fora/State Commissions. This Commission in R.P. No.2696 of 2011 - M/s. Shyam Developers Vs. Girishikhar Building ''A '' Co-op. Hsg. & Ors. has upheld order of impleadment of another party by learned State Commission to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on AIR 2004 Mad 446 - Manimalan Vs. K. Subrayan in which, it was observed that there is no impediment in entertaining an application for the amendment, even though, there is no specific provision for amendment under Consumer Protection Act. He further placed reliance on State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society & Ors. in which it was observed as under: "60 It is also well settled that a statutory Tribunal which has been conferred with the power to adjudicate a dispute and pass necessary order has also the power to implement its order. Further, the Act which is a self-contained Code, even if it has not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to have conferred upon the Tribunal all powers in order to make its order effective ".
Thus, it becomes clear that in the light of aforesaid judgements District Fora, State Commission and National Commission are competent to entertain application for amendment and impleadment of the parties, as there is also no bar in entertaining such applications, though, there is no specific provision. Thus, learned State Commission has not committed any error in entertaining and allowing application for amendment and impleadment of the petitioner and others as OP Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
AS far as merits of the case are concerned, learned State Commission has observed as under: "It is an admitted position before us that the original Opponent has transferred the rights in respect of the property in question to the proposed Opponent No. 2. Said power has been given by an agreement. Contention of the other side is that it was initially given to M/s. Karnataka Traders and from M/s. Karnataka Traders they have purchased the property in an auction. We need not go into this aspect at this stage. The fact remains that the proposed Opponent No. 2 stands in the shoes of the original Opponent No.1. Whatever may be the circumstances namely - that it is an auction purchase, auction purchase is also subject to rights of the persons whose property has been put to auction, namely the Opponent No.1. Therefore, viewed from any angle, as we are concerned with execution of conveyance of the property in favour of the Complainant Society, inclusion of the proposed Opponents is very much necessary ". To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, petitioner is apparently a necessary party and learned State Commission has not committed any error in impleading him as OP in the complaint. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner is free to take all objections before the State Commission in its written statement.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs