Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 105 of 2025 (An application under Order 47 read with Section 114 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908). M/s. KKREATION Associates Bhubaneswar & Anr. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- The Registrar, NCDRC, New Delhi & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Biswajit Das, Adv. Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI Along with Mr. G.K. Nayak, CGC Mr. R.K. Rout, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -20.06.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -18.07.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioners in the present Review Petition seek review of the judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.14583 of 2024, whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 (i) The Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into a Sale-Purchase Agreement on 27.02.2012 for the purchase of Flat No. A-04 in the project titled ‘The Country Side’, Bhubaneswar, for a total consideration of ₹32.76 lakhs. However, Opposite Party No. 2 paid only ₹18 lakhs, which included a booking amount of ₹3 lakhs and subsequent instalments. (ii) Subsequently, a Tripartite Agreement was executed among the Petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2, and Punjab & Sind Bank for a housing loan of ₹25 lakhs. As per the Agreement, Opposite Party No. 2 was required to contribute ₹7.76 lakhs from his own funds, while the Bank was to directly disburse ₹25 lakhs to the Petitioners. Contrary to the agreed terms, however, the Bank remitted the loan amount to Opposite Party No. 2, who thereafter defaulted on his payment obligations. (iii) Opposite Party No.2 unilaterally rescinded the Agreement citing alleged deficiency of service, and issued a Legal Notice dated 22.04.2013 seeking a refund of ₹20 lakhs. (iv) In response, the Petitioners declared Opposite Party No. 2 as a defaulter and, by Cancellation Letter dated 23.05.2013, asserted that any refund would be subject to requisite deductions. By a letter dated 28.05.2013, the Petitioner also informed the Bank about the default and sought directions regarding the termination of the Agreement. (v) In its reply dated 31.05.2013, the Bank disclosed that Opposite Party No. 2 had availed two loan instalments of ₹7 lakhs (on 27.09.2012) and ₹8 lakhs (on 04.10.2012). Upon scrutiny, the Petitioners discovered that these amounts were never remitted to them. The misappropriation was formally reported to the Bank on 04.06.2013. Page 2 of 13
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 (vi) Despite repeated requests dated 11.06.2013, 22.06.2013, and 01.07.2013 for details of Opposite Party No. 2’s loan transactions, the Bank failed to provide the requisite information, citing technical constraints. Meanwhile, Opposite Party No. 2, by letter dated 05.05.2013, reaffirmed his intention to withdraw from the transaction. (vii) On 26.07.2013, the Petitioners issued a Banker’s Cheque of ₹8 lakhs, which was encashed by the Bank on 29.07.2013 towards settlement of the loan account of Opposite Party No. 2. (viii) The District Commission, by Order dated 05.08.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 242/2013, held that the dispute arose from scheduled payment demands and found no deficiency of service attributable to the Petitioner. It further held that allegations of construction defects were unsubstantiated and that Opposite Party No. 2 had breached both the Sale-Purchase Agreement and the Tripartite Agreement. Nonetheless, it directed the Petitioner to refund ₹12 lakhs with interest from 04.06.2013 and pay ₹1,000/- towards litigation costs. (ix) Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Vide Common Order dated 05.07.2022 in FA No. 436/2015 and FA No. 555/2015, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified the refundable amount to ₹10 lakhs but enhanced the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of the Order until realisation. It further directed that if the payment was not made within 45 days, interest would escalate to 18% per annum. (x) In partial compliance, the Petitioners issued a Demand Draft dated 03.08.2022. On 05.08.2022, the Petitioner filed MC No. 512/2022, seeking Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 six months’ time to pay the remaining ₹5 lakhs in five instalments at 12% per annum, commencing from September 2022. (xi) Facing severe financial distress, the Petitioner arranged ₹13,40,000 from family sources and issued a Demand Draft dated 12.09.2022, requesting that Opposite Party No. 2 accept the same as full and final settlement. Upon refusal by Opposite Party No. 2, the Petitioner filed MC No. 960/2022 on 30.12.2022, seeking a direction to accept ₹18,40,000 in compliance with the Final Order dated 05.07.2022. (xii) The Petitioner sought to withdraw MC No. 960/2022 with liberty to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for appropriate relief. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed withdrawal vide Order dated 10.11.2023. (xiii) The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by Order dated 03.05.2024, dismissed the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and consequently rejected Revision Petition No. 679/2024 filed on 22.02.2024. (xiv) Aggrieved by the rejection, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 14583 of 2024, contending that denial of a full hearing amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court found no infirmity in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. (xv) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the Petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking reconsideration of the judgment dated 13.03.2025. Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Petitioners submitted that their inviolable Fundamental Right, particularly the right to redress grievances arising out of fraud played by Opposite Party 2, includes a just and final adjudication of Issue A, which specifically pertains to the matters averred by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that this right does not extend to the adjudication of Issue B, which concerns a factually incorrect recording and a digression by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission beyond the record, in the form of a "Review." (ii) The Petitioners asserted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Regulation 14 are directly applicable to the facts and law of the case, which were succinctly addressed in various written notes, including a critical judicial appreciation of the withdrawal of miscellaneous applications. The Petitioner contended that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has yet to adjudicate on Issue A, primarily due to the lack of an adequate opportunity to do so. (iii) The Petitioners further contended that the jurisdiction and limitation assessment conducted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is factually defective, particularly with regard to the improper assessment of "Sufficient Cause" under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Petitioner submitted that this error was incorrectly recorded and misinterpreted by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and this constitutes a digression requiring correction by this Court. Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 (iv) The Petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2025 suffers from clear and apparent errors on the face of the record. The Petitioner’s contentions have yet to be independently and judicially examined, while the Opposite Party’s incorrect contentions remain similarly unexamined. (v) The Petitioners submitted that the final view of this Court merely reiterates the opinion and observations of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission without any independent and judicial examination. Additionally, the judgment digresses from Issue A, which was the actual issue agitated by the Petitioners. (vi) The Petitioners submitted that the exercise of Review Jurisdiction is in the best interest of justice as it reduces the cumulative burden on the Court, makes the judicial system error-free, and serves as the most appropriate form of adjudication. (vii) The Petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment is confined solely to the Petitioners’ averment regarding the erroneous recording of the matter as a 2nd Appeal, as well as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s erroneous recording regarding the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (viii) The Petitioners submitted that the reasoning for delay has not been properly considered or adjudicated. The only observation made is based on an incorrect factual assumption that the Petitioner contradicted its belief regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the State Commission by filing a second miscellaneous application. (ix) The Petitioners submitted that the reasoning and analysis in the impugned judgment clearly demonstrate that there has been no Page 6 of 13 adjudication of the grounds raised by the Petitioner, particularly Issue A, thereby necessitating the exercise of Review Jurisdiction. (x) The Petitioners submitted that the reasoning for condoning the delay is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 presented without a proper factual examination of the case. Moreover, the dismissal and withdrawal of the Revision Petition and the two miscellaneous applications were mentioned without the reasoning for the dismissal of MC-512/2022 being recorded. Furthermore, the plea of violation of natural justice, as recorded in the earlier submissions, has not been addressed. Additionally, the reasoning provided by this Court was confined to a jurisdictional defect concerning the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was an erroneous digression from the impugned judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 03.05.2024. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) While passing the order on the condonation of delay, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the Petitioner failed to satisfactorily demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing Revision Petition No. 679 of 2024. The F.A. No. 436 of 2015 and F.A. No. 555 of 2015 were disposed of on 05.07.2022, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal. Consequently, the order dated 05.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No. 242 of 2014, was rightly upheld, and the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected. Page 7 of 13 (ii) In its impugned order dated 03.05.2024, the National Consumer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 Disputes Redressal Commission rightly refused to interfere with the order dated 05.07.2022. The Commission noted a delay of 428 days between the order dated 05.07.2022 and the filing of the Second Appeal on 23.11.2023, which the Petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain. Consequently, the Commission correctly dismissed Revision Petition No. 679 of 2024. The Petitioner has not established any justifiable grounds for interfering with the order dated 03.05.2024 through the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari. (iii) It is a well-settled legal principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must account for the delay from the very first day of the cause of action for filing the revision. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the Court, Tribunal, Commission, or Authority cannot condone the delay. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. The present case concerns the Petitioners’ challenge to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which rejected the Petitioners’ application for condonation of delay in filing a revision petition. 7. The Petitioners had previously approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 14583 of 2024, which was dismissed. The Petitioners now seek to invoke review jurisdiction, contending that the decision suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court is therefore Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 tasked with determining whether the dismissal of the writ petition warrants the exercise of review jurisdiction. 8. The power of review is a narrow and exceptional jurisdiction, intended solely to correct manifest errors or miscarriages of justice that are glaringly apparent on the record. It is not meant to provide a second opportunity to re-argue the merits of the case. This Court must therefore determine whether the present case meets the rigorous standards required for the exercise of review jurisdiction. 9. The Supreme Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi1, observed in this regard: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 10. This principle is pivotal in ensuring that the review jurisdiction is not misused to challenge a judgment merely because it is disagreeable to a party. 11. Further, the Petitioner claims there was "sufficient cause" to justify the delay in filing the revision petition. However, it is imperative to note that "sufficient cause" is not an abstract or vague concept. It requires a 1 (1997) 8 SCC 715. Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 clear, compelling, and demonstrable explanation for why the party was unable to meet the prescribed time limits. Condonation cannot be granted when the delay is attributable to negligence, lack of bona fides, or inaction. 12. In Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer2, the Supreme Court held that discretion in condoning delay must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. A mere lapse due to lack of diligence or an improper motive does not justify condonation of delay. An extract of the relevant paragraph is as follows: “12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.” 13. Further in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. LAO3, the Supreme Court observed in this regard: 2 (2013) 14 SCC 81. 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have Page 11 of 13 been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 14. In the present case, the delay in filing the revision petition spans a substantial period of 428 days, specifically between 05.07.2022 and 22/23.11.2023. The Petitioner has asserted that there was "sufficient cause" for this delay, yet the record reveals a pattern of inconsistent conduct throughout this period. Despite the significant delay, the Petitioner has failed to offer a coherent or compelling explanation. The Petitioner initiated multiple miscellaneous applications, each of which was either withdrawn or dismissed, without providing any satisfactory justification for these actions. 15. The delay is not merely a technical issue but reflects the Petitioners’ lack of urgency, diligence, and clarity in pursuing the matter. The Petitioners have not demonstrated that the delay was caused by unforeseen or unavoidable circumstances. Instead, the delay appears to stem from the Petitioners’ own inconsistent actions, including repeated filings and withdrawals, casting doubt on the bona fides of the claim for condonation. 16. It is a well-established principle that the burden of proving "sufficient cause" for the delay lies with the party seeking condonation. In this case, the Petitioner has failed to provide a valid or convincing explanation for the delay. This absence of a clear justification weakens the Petitioner’s request for condonation, rendering it unsubstantiated. 17. Based on the Petitioner’s lack of a reasonable explanation, coupled with the repeated filings and withdrawals, this Court finds no merit in the Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:33:59 claim for condonation of delay. The delay, compounded by inconsistent conduct and a lack of timely action, cannot be excused, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was caused by unavoidable or external factors. Consequently, the request for condonation is denied. 18. Moreover, the Petitioners have not demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.14583 of 2024. The decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to reject the condonation of delay was made after a thorough consideration of the facts, and this Court sees no reason to interfere with the Commission’s decision. 19. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th July, 2025 (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 13 of 13