1 CGHC010134432024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 351 of 2024 M/s Yukta Construction Bilaspur Through Proprietor Vikas Kumar Manjhi, S/o Shri Chandi Charan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Geetanjali Vihar, Nehru Nagar Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Reeta Dhruwe J. C. Dhruwe Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 15, J. P. Vihar, Mangla Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pragya Vaishnav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Barak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 242/2024, whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing revision has been rejected and consequently the criminal revision has also been dismissed as barred by limitation. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.10.06 10:54:27 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, as the complaint was decided ex parte. He would submit that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of a residential house measuring 2450 square feet and, during the course of construction, the respondent requested additional construction of 250 square feet at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per square feet, which was duly carried out by the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to make payment towards the said additional construction and, after issuance of legal notice by the petitioner, raised various allegations against the petitioner with a view to avoid payment. Thereafter, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, which was decided ex parte vide order dated 26.07.2019, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,39,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.04.2019, Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses, besides directing return of three cheques of Oriental Bank. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner came to know about the said ex parte order only through the execution proceedings and thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission along with an application for condonation of delay. However, the learned State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22.04.2022. He would further submit that the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission along with an application 3 for condonation of delay, but the learned National Commission also rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 06.02.2024, without considering the matter on merits. He would submit that the petitioner has never been heard on merits in the entire proceedings and has been deprived of an opportunity to contest the complaint, and therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. He would further submit that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and the explanation furnished by the petitioner ought to have been considered liberally, particularly when the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to contest the original complaint on merits. He would submit that the learned National Commission has also failed to properly consider the explanation furnished for the delay and has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the case. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 may kindly be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, for deciding the complaint afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. Present is a writ petition challenging the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay, and the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has been affirmed. The order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the State Commission is the order by which the first appeal filed by the 4 petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Forum has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The District Consumer Forum passed its order on 26.07.2019, which was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission after a delay of about 155 days. The revision petition before the National Commission was filed by the petitioner after 456 days, which has also been dismissed on the ground of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner explained the petitioner was not aware about the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission, and even the counsel has not informed about dismissal of their appeal. The petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the first appeal when they received a notice in execution proceedings, and then, after arranging the documents, they filed the revision. The petitioner disclosed in their application for condonation of delay that the revision is barred by 140 days, whereas the delay was of 456 days as has been considered by the Hon’ble National Commission. The order was passed by the State Commission on 22.04.2022 and the revision was filed by the petitioner before the National Commission on 20.10.2023. 5. The learned National Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay holding that the petitioner does not satisfactorily explained the delay by showing reasonable cause and consequently the revision was also dismissed. The learned National Commission while deciding the case considered the judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) VI(2011) CPJ 63 (SC), Basawaraj and An]other vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510, Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam, SLP (C) No. 2054-2055/2022 decided by the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25.02.2022, Brijesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others 2014 (11) SCC 351 and P.K. Ramchandran vs. State of Kerala and Another AIR 1998 SC 2276, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not duly explained the cause of delay and rejected the application and as a corollary consequence the revision was also dismissed. 6. Another aspect of the matter is that the revision was dismissed on 06.02.2024 and the present writ petition has been filed after more than two and a half year and there is no sufficient explanation from the petitioner for the delay caused in filing the present writ petition. In para 7 of the writ petition they only disclosed that there is no delay in filing the present writ petition. 7. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited in nature and is to be exercised sparingly only in cases of patent perversity, gross jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or failure of justice. The power under Article 227 does not confer upon this Court the status of an appellate forum to re-appreciate facts or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. In matters relating to condonation of delay and limitation, the discretion exercised by the courts/forums below, upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the party, ordinarily does not warrant interference unless such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of settled legal principles. In the present case, the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner and consequently dismissed the first appeal vide order dated 22.04.2022. Thereafter, the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also rejected the application for condonation of 6 delay and consequently dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 06.02.2024. In the present case the learned National Commission has recorded the finding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in availing the revisional remedy. The explanation furnished by the petitioner that they were not in knowledge of the order passed by learned State Commission and procedural delay in arranging documents has been duly considered and rejected by the learned National Commission by assigning cogent reasons and by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing law of limitation and condonation of delay. 8. In the case of “Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel” 2022 (4) SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “15. 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 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 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 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 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. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed: (SCC pp. 101 102, para 6) "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the 7 Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if 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, which the court or tribunal has come to." 9. This Court, upon perusal of the impugned orders and the material available on record, finds that the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner for the delay and have rejected the applications for condonation of delay by recording cogent reasons. No jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, perversity, or manifest illegality is demonstrated by the petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to establish any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in approaching the learned National Commission as well as to this Court. Merely because the petitioner seeks an adjudication of the matter on merits would not be a ground to overlook the statutory limitation, particularly when the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The findings recorded by the learned 8 National Commission do not suffer from any such infirmity which would warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 11. The present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok