Back
C. VISWANATH, RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
DLF Universal Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Uma Shankar Trivedi – Respondent
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 App
Objection as to limitation - Complainants are not permitted to raise the objection of limitation in filing the Review Application.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of review, the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record, and the need to correct wrongs committed to prevent....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The court established that review applications must demonstrate clear errors on the record, not mere legal interpretations or disagreements with prior judgments.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to obvious errors; it does not allow for re-examination of facts or merits already addressed in prior judgments.
(1) Additional Alternate remedy – When a consumer avails such remedy, the lis has to be decided in its entirety. (2) Inseparable part of dispute – The dispute before it[State Commission] had to be de....
The main legal point established is that the scope of review is limited to correcting error apparent, and uncondonable delay cannot be condoned without candid reasons.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
