SURENDRA SINGH RAGHAV Vs. HAJI MOHD. KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.2.2002 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal whereby complaint filed by the appellant-complainant was dismissed.

(2.) In short, the facts giving rise to this appeal are these. Appellant who was appointed as Diploma Trainee in M.P.E.B., filed Writ Petition 2445/89 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 4.2.1989 through Shobha Menon, Advocate for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable direction/order for his regularisation as Permanent Junior Engineer with all consequential benefits in view of Clause 2(VI) of the M.P. Industries Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, as writ petition was pending since long, the appellant engaged the respondent-opposite party as Counsel to conduct the writ petition and paid fee of Rs. 2,000. It was alleged that writ petition came up for hearing before a Single Judge on 8.12.1998 and was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, H.C. Kohli, Advocate filed an application for restoration of writ petition, which was dismissed on 26.2.1999. Another application being M.C.C. No. 274/1999 filed through another Counsel for restoration of writ petition was dismissed on 2.7.2000. Again, review petition registered as MCC No. 742/2000 filed by the appellant was dismissed on 4.9.2000. It was further alleged that the appellant through M.P. Shukla filed LPA No. 471/2000, which came up for hearing before a Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. While dismissing L.P.A. on 7.2.2000 the Division Bench after hearing the Counsel of appellant observed that the background discloses that the appellant had not been diligent in prosecuting the matter and he should have been present to pursue the matter when it was listed in Court and not allowed it to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Alleging deficiency in service the appellant thereafter filed complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakh, which was resisted by the respondent, by filing written version. In the written version one of the grounds taken was that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of H.C. Kohli, Advocate.

(3.) Submission advanced by Vimal Wadhawan for appellant is that the complaint was dismissed on ground of H.C. Kohli, Advocate not being impleaded as a party in the complaint and as the appellant is desirous of impleading Kohli as O.P. No. 2, the case may be remanded and appellant given an opportunity to file application before the State Commission seeking his impleadment. Order of State Commission would show that the observations made by Division Bench in the Order dated 7.2.2001 while dismissing LPA were also taken note of while dismissing complaint. As noticed above, non-impleadment of Kohli, Advocate was one of the grounds on which dismissal of complaint was sought by the respondent and despite that the appellant did not choose to array him as a party in the complaint. Appellant cannot be permitted now to implead Kohli against whom the claim as made in complaint has, obviously, become barred by limitation. There is no legal infirmity in the order of State Commission warranting interference under Section 21(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.