CWP-38260-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT The Estate Officer, HUDA (now HSVP), Faridabad & another R.N.Soni & another CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioner National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission revision petition (Annexure P Commission of delay of 224 2. The dispute in nutshell complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, respondent No.1 had Sector-12, Urban Estate, Palwal on free cancelled on the ground of non Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Officer, HUDA (now HSVP), Faridabad & another Versus R.N.Soni & another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. petitioners assail order dated 08.11.2024 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging (Annexure P-16) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), has been dismissed 224 days in filing the revision petition. The dispute in nutshell, which led to respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, espondent No.1 had been allotted residential plot measuring 6 marla in 12, Urban Estate, Palwal on free-hold basis, but cancelled on the ground of non-payment of dues/payments Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WP-38260-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision: 24.03.2026 Officer, HUDA (now HSVP), Faridabad & another … Petitioner ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI Advocate, 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), whereby a challenging order dated 05.01.2024 ) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal has been dismissed being time barred i.e. on account revision petition. espondent No.1 – R.N.Soni instituting a before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, is that been allotted residential plot measuring 6 marla in hold basis, but the same had been payment of dues/payments. The District vide its order dated 29.03.2019 Petitioners ... Respondents passed by the , whereby a 05.01.2024 ) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal being time barred i.e. on account instituting a is that been allotted residential plot measuring 6 marla in been The District 29.03.2019 VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38260-2025 (O&M) (Annexure P herein as under: “7. From the above discussion, it has been clearly proved that there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs setting aside the resumpti complainant being illegal. Therefore, the OPs are directed to: i. ii. iii. iv. 3. Aggrieved against the said order dated an appeal before the SCDRC, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P revision petition before the NCDRC challenging order dated (Annexure P period of limitation and there was a delay of dismissed being time (Annexure P 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 08.11.2024 (O&M) ( 2 ) (Annexure P-13) partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners as under: From the above discussion, it has been clearly proved that there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs setting aside the resumption order of Plot No. 616, Sector complainant being illegal. Therefore, the OPs are directed to: To re-allot the Plot No.616, Sector with immediate effect or in case the plot in question is already allotted to someone else then allot other available plot of the same size in same sector or in other sector at Palwal. To get deposit the dues of the plot in question from complainant, without charging any penalty, interest, surcharge & extension fee etc. and to adjust the wrongly forfeited amount in the fresh allotment of plot. To pay Rs.1100/- (One thousand one hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. To pay Rs.1100/- (One thousand one hundred only) as litigation charges.” Aggrieved against the said order dated 29.03.2019, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SCDRC, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-16). Still aggrieved, the petitioners revision petition before the NCDRC challenging order dated (Annexure P-16), but since the same had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of dismissed being time-barred vide impugned order dated (Annexure P-19). Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order dated (Annexure P-19) vehemently argued that the delay of 2 13) partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners From the above discussion, it has been clearly proved that there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs on order of Plot No. 616, Sector-12, Palwal of the complainant being illegal. Therefore, the OPs are directed to: allot the Plot No.616, Sector-12, Palwal to the complainant with immediate effect or in case the plot in question is already to someone else then allot other available plot of the same size in same sector or in other sector at Palwal. To get deposit the dues of the plot in question from complainant, without charging any penalty, interest, surcharge & extension fee etc. to adjust the wrongly forfeited amount in the fresh allotment of (One thousand one hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. (One thousand one hundred only) as litigation 29.03.2019, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SCDRC, but the same has been dismissed vide order Still aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the NCDRC challenging order dated 05.01.2024 , but since the same had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 224 days, the same was vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024 while assailing the impugned order dated 9) vehemently argued that the delay of 224 days 13) partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners From the above discussion, it has been clearly proved that there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs 12, Palwal of the 12, Palwal to the complainant with immediate effect or in case the plot in question is already to someone else then allot other available plot of the same To get deposit the dues of the plot in question from complainant, without charging any penalty, interest, surcharge & extension fee etc. to adjust the wrongly forfeited amount in the fresh allotment of (One thousand one hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to (One thousand one hundred only) as litigation 29.03.2019, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SCDRC, but the same has been dismissed vide order filed a 05.01.2024 , but since the same had been filed beyond the prescribed days, the same was 08.11.2024 while assailing the impugned order dated days in VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38260-2025 (O&M) filing the revision petition claims of the known that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of Government/semi pass through several channels before a final decision is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 2 thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for directing the NCDRC to decide the revision petition on merits. 5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions counsel for the petitioners. 6. There is no denying the fa ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant seeking condonation of delay. delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it is the facts of each case which are required to be considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The Courts are no prescribing limitation is defeated. judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 made where delay is inordinate and that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the opposite side would be a relevant fact (O&M) ( 3 ) filing the revision petition was not so huge so as to decline the legitimate claims of the HUDA (now HSVP). It has been submitted that it is well that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of Government/semi-Government institutions/larg pass through several channels before a final decision is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 224 days ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel, hus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for directing the NCDRC to decide the revision petition on merits. We have considered the aforesaid submissions counsel for the petitioners. here is no denying the fact that in a fit case where the Courts in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant seeking condonation of delay. However, t delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it is the facts of each case which are required to be considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The Courts are not expected to be liberal to the prescribing limitation is defeated. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao , (2001) 9 SCC 106, , wherein it was observed that a distinction must be made where delay is inordinate and a case where that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the opposite side would be a relevant factor. was not so huge so as to decline the legitimate . It has been submitted that it is well that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of Government institutions/large offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final decision is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC days ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel, hus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for directing the NCDRC to decide the revision petition on merits. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of learned ct that in a fit case where the Courts in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would tend to be liberal condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant However, there is no broad yard-stick that delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it is the facts of each case which are required to be borne in mind while considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The the extent that the very purpose of At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to a Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao observed that a distinction must be case where the delay is of few days and that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the was not so huge so as to decline the legitimate . It has been submitted that it is well that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of e offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final decision is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC days ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel, hus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for directing the raised on behalf of learned ct that in a fit case where the Courts in order to in condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant that delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it while considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The very purpose of At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to a Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao observed that a distinction must be of few days and that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38260-2025 (O&M) 7. In Maniben Devraj (2012) 5 SCC 157 “23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigat apart from the cost. 24. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. part of the bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it woul legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay 8. Hon’ble the Apex Court in 7 SCC 556 as under: “11. ……….. Law of limitation fixes a life the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons t remedy by approaching the courts. So a life remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is reipublicae u be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every (O&M) ( 4 ) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, it was held as under: What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigat apart from the cost. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it woul legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay Hon’ble the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. 7 SCC 556, while dwelling upon the purpose of prescribing limitation, held ……….. Law of limitation fixes a life- the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons t remedy by approaching the courts. So a life remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to ilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.” N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) , while dwelling upon the purpose of prescribing limitation, held -span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life-span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation enshrined in the maxim interest (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to ilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) , while dwelling upon the purpose of prescribing limitation, held VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38260-2025 (O&M) legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.” 9. Coming to the facts of pr filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. We also find that the submissions raised on behalf of justify the delay in filing the revision petition is a casual explanation that for taking a decision the delay is involved because the file has to go through many channels before approval can be granted for filing a revision petition. The petitioner Government is experts. No prevented the petitioner prescribed time recorded by the NCDRC in order dated inasmuch as days in filing the 10. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned order or there in the instant case. Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: “18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction (O&M) ( 5 ) legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of ” Coming to the facts of present case, we find that the delay of 224 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. We also find that the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners justify the delay in filing the revision petition is a casual explanation that for taking a decision the delay is involved because the file has to go through many channels before approval can be granted for filing a revision petition. The petitioners – HUDA (now HSVP) Government is having sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from No justifiable explanation is forth prevented the petitioners from filing the prescribed time-frame. Thus, we are in recorded by the NCDRC in order dated inasmuch as there is no plausible justification for days in filing the revision petition. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned order or if there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which there in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of we find that the delay of 224 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. We also find that the the petitioners – HUDA (now HSVP) to justify the delay in filing the revision petition is a casual explanation that for taking a decision the delay is involved because the file has to go through many channels before approval can be granted for filing a revision petition. HUDA (now HSVP) being an agency of the State having sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from justifiable explanation is forth-coming to show as to what from filing the revision petition within the in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-1 justification for explaining the delay of 224 In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction so as to assail the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Garment Craft AIR 2022 SC 422, while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction we find that the delay of 224 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. We also find that the P) to justify the delay in filing the revision petition is a casual explanation that for taking a decision the delay is involved because the file has to go through many channels before approval can be granted for filing a revision petition. an agency of the State having sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from as to what within the agreement with the observations 19) 224 so as to assail the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the is not M/s Garment Craft , while defining the scope of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38260-2025 (O&M) exercised by the High Court under Article India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. jurisdiction is when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 11. Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra) impugned order jurisdiction. dismissed. 24.03.2026 Vimal (O&M) ( 6 ) exercised by the High Court under Article India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exe of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra), we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law laid down in M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the any interference in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.30 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document