JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. The instant civil revision application has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Ld. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short NCDRC) in connection with First Appeal No. 801 of 2023 which was preferred against the orders dated 10.01.2023 and 12.06.2023 respectively passed by the Ld. Siliguri, Circuit Bench of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Consumer Forum) in Consumer Case No. 11 of 2022. Further proceeding of that case pending before the State Consumer Forum, was placed ex-parte on the ground that none had appeared for the revisionist herein despite service of notice. Against this order the revisionist here filed a petition for vacating the order dated 10.01.2023 which was rejected by the State Consumer Forum vide Order dated 12.06.2023 on the ground that there was a statutory bar on the State Consumer Forum to review its own order. Thereafter, challenging the said order the revisionist preferred the aforesaid First Appeal being no. 801 of 2023 before the NCDRC which was rejected on the ground of limitation.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of NCDRC the revisionist has preferred the instant revision application with a prayer for direction upon the NCDRC to here the matter afresh on merit.

Argument:-

3. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Arun Kumar Sarkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly canvassed his argument on the point of duration of delay which is negligible and has argued that the delay from the date of the order declaring the appellant ex-parte is 164 days and in case of subsequent order dated 12.06.2023, when the petition of setting aside the order of ex-parte hearing was rejected, the delay sought to be condoned boils down to only 13 days which is prayed to be allowed on the ground that the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to take steps on the date fixed for appearance due to diary mistake which is a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate one.

4. Mr. Sarkar further contended that the NCDRC has not properly evaluated the explanation given by the petitioner before rejecting the appeal for condonation of delay and also has not considered the appeal on merit.

5. Before parting with, Mr. Sarkar has submitted that this Hon’ble High Court has ample jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 227 of the Constitution of India by relying on the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. in connection with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023.

6. In opposition to that, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Ajoy Debnath, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has vociferously contended that the present revision ought to have been filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as this Hon’ble High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

7. Mr. Debnath has further contended that the petitioners in the prayer has prayed for issuance of appropriate writs against the impugned order passed by the NCDRC therefore the petition cannot be treated as revision but a writ petition. But, even if the nature of the petition is converted to a writ petition still that writ petition cannot be entertained as it does not lie against private individuals.

8. In his concluding argument, Mr. Debnath has supported the observation of the NCDRC made in the impugned order wherein it was held that the explanation furnished by the petitioners herein in explanation for the delay was not sufficient and therefore he has opined that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or irregularity.

Analysis:-

9. Before delving into the merit of the case, I would like to discuss about the issue relating to jurisdiction and nature of the application raised by the opposite party herein. It is admitted position of fact that the suit property is situated in West Bengal and also the