Point of Law: Article 227 operates within a narrower compass than appellate jurisdiction. Where, therefore, scope of interference with discretionary orders is limited even in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, scope of such interference, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, would be still more circumscribed.

JUDGMENT :

Factual Backdrop

1. Consumer Case No. 697/2018 was preferred by O.P. Mehta and Siddharth Wadia, the respondents herein, against the petitioner DLF Homes Rajapura Pvt Ltd, before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC" ) under Section 12(1)(c) [12. Manner in which complaint shall be made. – (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by – ***** (c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested;"] read with Section 13(6) [13. Procedure on admission of complaint. – ***** (6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 2, the provisions of Rule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon.] of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" , hereinafter) read with Order I Rule 8 [The relevant clauses of Order I Rule 8 read thus: "8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest. – (1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,- (a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested; (b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. (2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested, either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct."] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Consumer Case No. 697/2018 would be referred to, hereinafter, as "the complaint" .

3. Consumer Case No. 697/2018 was filed as a "joint consumer complaint" , and was stated to have been "preferred in a representative capacity …. for the benefit of entire class of persons having the same interest" , before the learned NCDRC. The consumers purportedly having the same interest, whom the respondents sought to represent, were investors in the 'Maiden Heights‘ housing project of the petitioner at Bangalore. The complaint averred that Clause 9.3(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, executed between the petitioner and each of the subscribers/investors in the project, required the petitioner to hand over, to the investors, possession of the flats in the project within 60 days from the date of their application. Qua Respondents 1 and 2, for example, the complaint alleged that, though the flats were required to be handed over on 13th April 2014 and 24th May 2014 respectively. Instead, highly belated final demand notes were issued; to Respondent 1 on 19th December 2016 and to Respondent 2 on 7th June 2016. This, it was alleged, had breached the Flat Buyers Agreement. Possession of the flats, it was asserted, was required to be handed over on 13th April 2014. Possession of the flats was offered to the investors much later, but, even then, the complaint alleged that the flats were not in habitable condition, and several facilities and amenities, which were required to be provided in the flats, including permanent electricity and water connection, were absent.

4. For these reasons, the complaint sought a direction to the petitioner to refund, to the respondents and other flat buyers having the same interest,