The principle established is that review jurisdiction is intended for correcting manifest errors, not reassessing merits, and the burden to prove sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners in the present Review Petition seek review of the judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.14583 of 2024, whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into a Sale-Purchase Agreement on 27.02.2012 for the purchase of Flat No. A-04 in the project titled ‘The Country Side’, Bhubaneswar, for a total consideration of Rs.32.76 lakhs. However, Opposite Party No. 2 paid only Rs.18 lakhs, which included a booking amount of Rs.3 lakhs and subsequent instalments.

(ii) Subsequently, a Tripartite Agreement was executed among the Petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2, and Punjab & Sind Bank for a housing loan of Rs.25 lakhs. As per the Agreement, Opposite Party No. 2 was required to contribute Rs.7.76 lakhs from his own funds, while the Bank was to directly disburse Rs.25 lakhs to the Petitioners. Contrary to the agreed terms, however, the Bank remitted the loan amount to Opposite Party No. 2, who thereafter defaulted on his payment obligations.

(iii) Opposite Party No.2 unilaterally rescinded the Agreement citing alleged deficiency of service, and issued a Legal Notice dated 22.04.2013 seeking a refund of Rs.20 lakhs.

(iv) In response, the Petitioners declared Opposite Party No. 2 as a defaulter and, by Cancellation Letter dated 23.05.2013, asserted that any refund would be subject to requisite deductions. By a letter dated 28.05.2013, the Petitioner also informed the Bank about the default and sought directions regarding the termination of the Agreement.

(v) In its reply dated 31.05.2013, the Bank disclosed that Opposite Party No. 2 had availed two loan instalments of Rs.7 lakhs (on 27.09.2012) and Rs.8 lakhs (on 04.10.2012). Upon scrutiny, the Petitioners discovered that these amounts were never remitted to them. The misappropriation was formally reported to the Bank on 04.06.2013.

(vi) Despite repeated requests dated 11.06.2013, 22.06.2013, and 01.07.2013 for details of Opposite Party No. 2’s loan transactions, the Bank failed to provide the requisite information, citing technical constraints. Meanwhile, Opposite Party No. 2, by letter dated 05.05.2013, reaffirmed his intention to withdraw from the transaction.

(vii) On 26.07.2013, the Petitioners issued a Banker’s Cheque of Rs.8 lakhs, which was encashed by the Bank on 29.07.2013 towards settlement of the loan account of Opposite Party No. 2.

(viii) The District Commission, by Order dated 05.08.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 242/2013, held that the dispute arose from scheduled payment demands and found no deficiency of service attributable to the Petitioner. It further held that allegations of construction defects were unsubstantiated and that Opposite Party No. 2 had breached both the Sale-Purchase Agreement and the Tripartite Agreement. Nonetheless, it directed the Petitioner to refund Rs.12 lakhs with interest from 04.06.2013 and pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs.

(ix) Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Vide Common Order dated 05.07.2022 in FA No. 436/2015 and FA No. 555/2015, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified the refundable amount to Rs.10 lakhs but enhanced the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of the Order until realisation. It further directed that if the payment was not made within 45 days, interest would escalate to 18% per annum.

(x) In partial compliance, the Petitioners issued a Demand Draft dated 03.08.2022. On 05.08.2022, the Petitioner filed MC No. 512/2022, seeking six m