IN TH E N A TIO N A L C O N S U M E R D IS P U TE S R E D R E S S A L COMMISSION, N E W D E LH I M A /524/2025 IN R E V IS IO N P E TITIO N N O .930 O F 2025 (Against the order dated 31.07.2024 in FA No.471 of 2022 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu)

■ Mr. N Murugan ... Petitioner versus M/s. Avalon Properties Partnership Firm Rep. by its Partners V. Vijayakumar & Ors. ... Respondents DCBA B E FO R E:

H O N ’B LE A VM J. R A JEN D R A , A VSM VSM (R ETD .), PR ESID IN G M EM B ER H O N ’B LE M R . JU STIC E A N O O P K U M A R M EN D IR A TTA , M EM B ER For Petitioner : Mr. Muruganandam, Advocate (VC)

D ated : 26-11-2025

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant with respect to MA/524 of

2025 seeking restoration of Revision Petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.09.2025.

Considering the submission made, MA/504/2025 is allowed and

2.

Revision Petition No.930 of 2025 is restored to its original number.

3. As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 153 days in filing this Revision Petition. The Petitioner filed IA No.7968/2025 seeking Condonation of delay. In the said IA, the learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he has received the order copy in FA No.471 of 2022 passed by learned State Commission on 10.09.2024. Thereafter petitioner had filed Revision Application before this Commission in RA No. 13 of 2024 for the Revision of order. Subsequently petitioner received the order copy in RA No. 13 of 2024 on 14.03.2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further stated that he had filed Revision petition online before National Commission on 11.05.2025. Therefore, there was a delay of 152 days. He further stated that delay is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the above said reasons, hence, prayed that the delay may be condoned.

4. As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure)

Regulations, 2020 iAnter alia stipulates that:-

“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-

i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

5. In the present Revision Petition, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 31.07.2024. The limitation for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days, which would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 10.09.2024 while the limitation lapsed on 08.12.2024. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 11.05.2025. Therefore, there is a delay of 153 days (09.12.2024 to 10.05.2025) in filing of the present Revision Petition.

6. As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs.

Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361" observed:

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.

7. The test to be applied while dealing with such cases is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ”RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Sca