BEFORE THE
HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III
Tramline
Building ( 1st Floor )
18, Judges
Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027
Consumer Case
no. CC/281/2021
In the matter of :
Tapas Ghosal, and Others;
----Complainants
-
Versus –
Soumen Chakraborty,
------Opposite
Party
Petition for
rejection of amendment of pleading under Order VI Rule 17, of the Civil
Procedure Code’ 1908;
The humble petition of the Opposite Party, above
named, most respectfully;
Sheweth as
under;
1.
That the
Complainants instituted their Consumer Case under Section 35 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, against this opposite party, with a prayer to direct the
developer to hand over the ready flat within 3 months from the date of the
order, and to refund the entire amount of Rs. 14,70,000/- with 12% simple
interest from date of payment till realization, and compensation and litigation
cost, etc.
2.
That the
Opposite Party appeared in the present consumer proceeding instituted by the
complainant on receipt of the notice given by the Hon’ble District Commission.
The Opposite Party submitted his Written Version being appropriate answer/
reply on the consumer application of the complainants.
3.
That on and
after submissions of the written version, the present consumer proceeding is
fixed for submission of Evidence on Affidavit by the Complainants, which being
commencement of trial in the present consumer proceeding before the Hon’ble
District Commission.
4.
That
thereafter the Complainants placed an application for amendment of their
pleading in terms of the Schedule given therein, on plea that some important
facts were inadvertently omitted in complaint petition, which is not correct
and true state of affair, as the same is an endeavour to fulfil their latches
on being came into knowledge after submission of the written version by this
opposite party.
5.
That this
Opposite party states and submits that the application for amendment by the
complainants is an endeavour to fulfil their latches on being came into
knowledge after submission of the written version by this opposite party.
6.
That this
Opposite party states and submits that the proposed amendment is not in formal
in nature and thus the nature and character of the present consumer complaint
case shall change in its entirety.
7.
That this
Opposite party states and submits that the additional facts by way of proposed
amendment is not acceptable, specifically when the facts does not accompanied
with any document to be ever relied on by the complainants.
8.
That this Opposite party states and submits
that the deletion of prayer “b” in the petition of consumer complainant, cannot
be said to be an amendment by way of deletion of prayer, as the same is not
permissible in terms of the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil
Procedure Code’ 1908.
9.
That this
Opposite party states and submits that the deletion of prayer “b” in the
petition of consumer complainant is not an amendment and the same is covered by
the provision of Order VI Rule 16 CPC being striking out pleading which is
otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
10.
That this
Opposite party states and submits that the complainants added a paragraph in
paragraph number 11, which has no significance to determine the real question
of controversy.
11.
That this
Opposite party states and submits that the mentioned amendments shall not be
needed to determine the real question of controversy.
12.
That the
proposed amendment has malafide intention and shall delay the trial of the
present consumer proceeding.
13.
That if the
Hon’ble District Commission all owes the petition of amendment of the Consumer
application, the Complainants shall be highly prejudiced.
Wherefore it
is most humbly prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to allow the
petition for rejection of the amendment of the consumer application in the
interest of administration of Justice, and /or to pass such other necessary
order or orders as your Honour may deem, fit and proper for the end of Justice.
And for this
act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Verification
I, Soumen
Chakraborty, bein the Opposite Party, made this petition for rejection of
amendment placed by the complainants. I am conversant and acquainted with the
material facts as stated in the forgoing paragraph of the petition. I verify
and sign this on the ____day of ________2023, at the Court Premises.
AFFIDAVIT
I,
Sri Soumen Chakraborty, Son of Ashoke Chakraborty,
aged about _____years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, and Proprietor
of M/s. MIK Developer, a proprietorship concern having its office at 90,
Santosh Roy Road, James Long Crossing, Kolkata – 700008, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as follows :
- That I
being the Opposite Party in the instant case being filed by the
Complainant, and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the said case.
This is true to
my knowledge.
- That the
statements made in paragraphs 1 to __________of my petition are true to
the best of my knowledge and belief and the rests are my humble
submissions before your Honour’s Commission.
D E P O N E N
T
Identified by
me
Advocate.
Prepared
in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Date
: ____________2023.
Place
: Alipore, Kolkata.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment