IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Material Irregularity – Failure to record reasons constitutes a material irregularity, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
(2) Length of the delay – When a case has prima facie merit, the court should not defeat the rights of parties on technical grounds of limitation. The length of the delay is immaterial if the cause is sufficiently explained.

ORDER

The DCDRC-II, Lucknow (for short the District Commission) allowed the complaint of the complainant on 20.08.2011 directing the Lucknow Development Authority to pay a sum of Rs.2,84,279/- together with 9% interest with effect from the date of the filing of the complaint and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

2. The Lucknow Development Authority filed an appeal being FA/1877/2012 in which notices were issued and the petitioner filed his response and was represented through his counsel Mr. Rohit Tripathi but on a couple of occasions he defaulted. On the date when the matter was heard no one was present on behalf of the complainant and the State Commission observed that the freehold of the land has been carried out but the possession could not have been handed over on account of an order passed by the High Court, as such the Development Authority had not acted with any malafide or with ulterior motive. The learned State Commission also observed that in its opinion there does not appear to be any justification for awarding compensation for mental agony or costs and therefore the appeal was finally allowed and the order of the District Commission was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant urged that the impugned order does not record any reason and is cryptic in nature without objectively dealing with the issues or dealt with by the District Commission in detail and therefore the impugned order on merits is unsustainable as it fails to examine the issues that have been dealt with and answered by the District Commission. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 16.10.2023.

3. However, the present revision petition has been filed with a reported delay of 464 days and accordingly notices were issued on the delay condonation application that has been served on the Lucknow Development Authority and Mr. Chaudhary has appeared for the Lucknow Development Authority. Accordingly time was granted on IA 4992 of 2025 seeking a response on the delay condonation application. The order dated 13.10.2025 is extracted hereunder:

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 465 days in the filing of the revision petition.

The proceedings arise out of a consumer dispute CC/731/2008 that was decided by the DCDRC Lucknow-II (for short the District Commission) on 20.08.2011.

The opposite party/respondent authority i.e. the Lucknow Development Authority went up in Appeal in First Appeal No. 1877 of 2012 before the SCDRC Uttar Pradesh (for short the State Commission). The appeal has been allowed and the order of the District Commission has been set aside and the Lucknow Development Authority has been directed to receive any amount deposited by it during the pendency of the appeal.

The revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants with a delay of 464 days. The present application has been moved praying for condoning the said delay and Adv. Abhishek Chaudhary and Adv. Ritika Srivastava have appeared on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority praying for four weeks’ time to file a response to the delay condonation application.

Let the delay condonation application be listed for orders on 19.12.2025.“

4. Mr. Chaudhary submits that he does not propose to file any written reply and that he would advance his submissions in view of the facts already on record to demonstrate that there is no sufficient cause explained nor is there any cogent explanation regarding this inordinate delay of more than a year. It is urged that the petitioner complainant has taken a plea that since he was ailing and has relied on certain medical documents, therefore, he was unable to file this revision petition in time at Delhi. It is urged by Mr. Chaudhary that this plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that all the medical prescriptions are of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi and therefore if the complainant could have travelled upto