31.08.2026 Ct. No.652 D/L.16 & 17 ( NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) C.O. 4123 of 2025 With C.O. 4124 of 2025 Madhumita Sarkar Biswas & Anr. Vs. Chitrahill Realty & Ors. Ms. Hashnuhana Chakraborty, Mr. Santanu Karmakar …for the Petitioners 1. Since the issues involved in these revisional applications are similar in nature, the same are taken up analogously for final disposal. 2. Since there is no caveat, notice has not been served upon the opposite parties. 3. Ms. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has moved the civil revision today. She submits that the petitioners has challenged the order dated 28th August, 2025 of a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of West Bengal. She indicates that in the said order, the Commission has erroneously and without jurisdiction passed an order, expunging the name of the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 from the complaint. 2 4. The petitioners grievance against the said order is as regards the facts that the Commission has wrongly assessed the opposite party no.1 to be a company and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to be directors thereof. Instead, she submits, that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are private individuals respectively, who are partners of the opposite party no.1. Section 32(2) of the Indian Partnership Act has been referred to. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has emphasized that without following due procedure under the law and before severance of relationship with the firm, the partners cannot escape their liability arising due to the partnership ties. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the State Commission dated 28th August, 2025 suffers from gross jurisdictional error, that too, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the complainant/petitioners. 6. After considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioners as well as perusing the document available in the records, this Court is concurring with the submission made on behalf of the petitioners in view of Section 32(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. 3 7. Therefore, the order of the learned State Commission by expunging the names of the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 citing reason from resignation from the company concerned appears to be gross error apparent on the face of the order. 8. In view of such matter, the Court does not find any necessity to direct for service of notice of the opposite parties. 9. It is directed that let this civil revision be disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 28th August, 2025. 10. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is further directed to hear the IA No. 669 of 2024 and IA No.670 of 2024 afresh, in presence of both the parties and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the copy of this order and pass its order afresh. 11. All concerned parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. < (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)