HARU DAS Vs. SOUMEN KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the direction of this Court given on September 11, 2019, an attempt was made to serve the opposite parties no.1 to 3. While service was effected on the opposite party no. 1, that of the correctly addressed postal articles sent to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 were returned with the endorsement "addressee has left". Let the affidavit of service be kept on record.

(2.) I have Mr. Bagchi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Ashim Kumar Roy for the opposite party no. 1 and have considered the jurisdictional question raised in this petition in the light of the records of the case.

(3.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated January 14, 2019 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. To understand the effect of the said order, it is required to briefly refer to the facts of the case as apparent from the face of the records. It shows very clearly that a person against whom no order has been passed, has been needlessly dragged into an execution proceeding before the consumer forum.