IMPORTANT POINT
Objection as to limitation - Complainants are not permitted to raise the objection of limitation in filing the Review Application.

ORDER

MA/251/2021 is filed by the Respondents/Complainants against the order passed by this Commission dated 01.10.2021 in Review Application No.224/2019 in First Appeal No.1416/2016 whereby this Commission modified the order dated 13.02.2019 with following observation:—

“In view of the above, we, in exercise of power of Review, modify the order dated 13.1.2019 and hold that the Respondents are not entitled to the exception made in para 26 of the order and are bound by the orders and direction which are applicable to all other Complainants in the connected Appeals as set out in para 27 and 28 of the order dated 13.2.2018. Review Application is disposed on above terms.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Complainants/Respondents have filed the instant miscellaneous application.

3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties as well as Respondent No.1 in person and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the submissions of the Applicants were not recorded in the order. This Commission, vide impugned order dated 01.10.2021, disposed of Review Application and modified the judgment dated 13.02.2019, despite there being no error apparent on the face of record and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction of Review. It was also submitted that while modifying the judgment dated 13.02.2019, this Commission failed to appreciate that the Complainants had already purchased another property and living in the said property since 2018. The Complainants, therefore, could not be forced to purchase second property. While modifying the judgment dated 13.02.2019, this Commission also failed to appreciate that the Complainants sought refund of the amount deposited by them, which was also granted by this Commission, vide judgment dated 13.02.2019. This Commission incorrectly observed that the Complainants had given a wrong impression to this Commission at the time of final hearing of FA/1416/2016 that they had purchased another accommodation and did not require the property booked with the Opposite Party. The Complainants purchased another property when they realised that there was delay in delivery of possession by the Opposite Party. It was also submitted that there was delay of 155 days in filing the Review Application and this Commission suo motu condoned the said delay, which was not justified.

4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/non-applicant submitted that the Respondents/Applicants have challenged the order passed in the Review Application, which is not permissible under law. The Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that during the course of final arguments, the Complainants made a false statement that they had already purchased another house after order of the State Commission. On the basis of the false statement made by the Complainants, this Commission, vide order dated 13.02.2019, observed that the said purchase amounted to material change in the circumstances of the Complainants. This Commission, therefore, directed the Opposite Party to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of offer of possession. The Opposite Party filed Review Application No.224/2019 bringing the false statement of the Complainant to the notice of this Commission. This Commission, vide order dated 01.10.2021, disposed of the Review Application and modified the final judgment dated 13.02.2019 with the direction reproduced above. The instant miscellaneous application is nothing but an abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. The only issue before us is whether the Complainants/Applicants made a false statement to this Commission at the time of final arguments in FA/14/16/2016, relating to purchase of another property. In this regard, para 26 of the judgment dated 13.02.2019 is