‘Cannot Keep Sword of Damocles Hanging’: State Consumer Commission Dismisses Builder's Appeal Filed After 273-Day Delay - 2025-08-03

State Consumer Commission Dismisses Builder's Appeal for 273-Day Delay, Cites Public Policy on Limitation

Jaipur, Rajasthan – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by Unique Builder And Developer against a homebuyer, primarily on the grounds of an inordinate delay of 273 days in filing the appeal. The bench, comprising Judicial Member Ms. Urmila Verma and Member Mr. Liyakat Ali, held that the reasons provided for the delay were unsatisfactory and that the "Sword of Damocles" cannot hang over a litigant indefinitely.

Case Background

The case stems from a prolonged dispute between the builder, Unique Builder And Developer, and the complainant, Upendra Kumar Arya, over the possession of a flat (No. E-602). The original complaint was filed in 2009. After several rounds of litigation, including orders from the District, State, and National Commissions, the matter landed in execution proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karauli.

During these proceedings, the District Commission issued orders on February 17, 2022, and September 7, 2022. These orders directed the builder to pay the outstanding amount to the homebuyer and issued a bailable warrant, followed by a recovery warrant, for non-compliance. The builder challenged these two orders in the present appeal, filed 273 days after the limitation period had expired.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Unique Builder And Developer): The builder argued that the delay should be condoned as they were misled by the homebuyer. They claimed a settlement had been reached, and a demand draft for ₹4,32,486 was paid on July 12, 2021. The builder's counsel asserted that the homebuyer gave an assurance that he would withdraw the execution case upon encashing the draft. Relying on this assurance, the builder's counsel did not attend subsequent hearings, believing the matter was resolved. They claimed to have become aware of the pending case and the adverse orders only in November 2022, after which they promptly filed the appeal.

Respondent (Upendra Kumar Arya): The homebuyer's counsel refuted any claims of a final settlement. They argued that the builder had not complied with the State Commission's order dated August 9, 2018, which mandated the payment of 10% annual interest on the deposited amount from November 2009 until the date of possession. The respondent contended that the builder had overcharged on the principal amount by ₹1,31,620 and underpaid the interest by ₹1,19,000. They submitted that the execution proceedings were for the recovery of this outstanding amount and the orders passed by the District Commission were legally sound.

Court's Analysis and Decision on Delay

The Commission first addressed the application for condonation of the 273-day delay. It found the builder's explanation—that they were misled by the homebuyer's verbal assurances—to be unsatisfactory and not credible.

The judgment noted, "The appellant was aware that the complainant had not withdrawn the execution proceedings... The order of 17-02-2022 was passed after hearing both parties. Therefore, the appellant's contention that they became aware of the order only when the complainant informed their management is not believable."

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in H. Guruswamy & Ors. vs Krishnaiah , the Commission emphasized the importance of the law of limitation:

“The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principal of sound public policy and principal of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

The Commission concluded that the builder failed to provide a rational, reasonable, or realistic explanation for each day of the delay, as required by law. Consequently, the application to condone the delay was dismissed.

Findings on Merits

Although dismissing the appeal on limitation, the Commission also briefly commented on the merits. It clarified that the orders under challenge were part of ongoing execution proceedings, not cognizance orders as claimed by the appellant. The Commission stated that the builder is at liberty to raise all its objections, including the claim of a settlement, before the executing court (the District Commission).

The court observed, "The appellant is free to present all its defenses, including the facts of the alleged settlement and the payment made, before the executing court. This appeal cannot be used to terminate the execution proceedings."

Final Order

The State Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it barred by limitation and also lacking merit. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The records were ordered to be returned to the District Consumer Commission, Karauli, for the execution proceedings to continue.