The review application was rejected due to failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay and lack of new evidence or errors apparent on the record.

ORDER

(IN CHAMBER)

1. This review application no. 14 of 2026 has been filed alongwith I.A. No.1194 of 2026 praying for condoning the delay of 129 days in the filing of the review petition. The order of which, review has been sought is dated 07.05.2024. This review application has been filed after this Commission has proceeded in execution application no. 141 of 2025 where orders have been passed by a Division Bench of this Commission on 31.07.2025 and 29.10.2025.

2. In paragraph 4 of the delay condonation application, it has been stated that I it was only in late July 2025, that, being confronted with the order dated 31.07.2025, led to the discovery of the existence of ex parte impugned order for the first time. The date of knowledge is 31.07.2025.

3. In paragraph 5 of the delay condonation application, it has been stated that from August till mid-November, 2025, time was consumed in collecting voluminous documents for drafting a robust objection. In paragraph 6, it is stated that since the litigation was a decade old litigation concerning several home buyers, and had been an outcome of mismanagement by the opposite party no. 2, namely, M/s Three Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. (described in paragraph 6(b) as 3C Group). Coupled with these events and default of payment by the complainants / home buyers, the case was not a usual case to handle.

4. The next explanation given is of the intervening Diwali vacations and the affidavits being notarized on 27.10.2025 and then objections being filed on 01.12.2025 in the execution application no. 141 of 2025.

5. Once again, in paragraph 9, it has been stated that due to this exhaustive process, time was justifiably consumed in November and December 2025 and, therefore, as the vacations ended, the petitioner on 05.01.2026 filed a Writ Petition no. 329 of 2026 before the High Court of Delhi to challenge the impugned orders. The High Court of Delhi did not entertain the writ petition and liberty was sought by the applicants themselves to withdraw the petition and was granted permitting withdrawal. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 12.01.2026. A copy of this order has been filed at page 1193, which is extracted hereinunder:-

“CM APPL. 1591/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 1592/2026

1. Mr. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner after making brief submissions, realizes that he will have to go back to the same forum which has passed the order dated 07.05.2024, for redressal of his grievance.

2. He, therefore, seeks liberty to withdraw the instant peitition with liberty to take appropriate recourse, thereafter, if need arises.

3. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition, at this stage stands dismissed with as withdrawn.

4. All rights and contentions are left open.

6. The present review application has been presented on 30.01.2026 and therefore, delay is sought to be explained in the above mentioned manner praying for condonation of delay,

7. The application arises out of C. C. No. 938 of 2017 that had been filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where the power to set aside ex parte orders has been conferred under Section 22A , which is extracted hereinunder:-

“22A. Power to set aside ex parte order.- Where an order is passed by the National Commission ex parte against the opposite party or a complainant, as the case may be, the aggrieved party may apply to the Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice.”

8. under Section 22(2), it is only the National Commission, which has been granted the power