IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6589-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 OMAXE Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Shyama Yadav & another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Karanjeet Singh Mainee, Advocate, for the petitioner.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner – OMAXE Ltd. assails order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-1)

passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), has been dismissed being time barred i.e. on account of delay of 300 days in filing the appeal.

2. The dispute in nutshell, which led to respondent No.1 – Shyama Yadav instituting a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, is that respondent No.1 had booked a flat in a residential complex to be developed by Omaxe Ltd. (petitioner), but despite respondent No.1 having paid the agreed amount, the petitioner had failed to hand over possession of the same within the stipulated time-frame. The SCDRC vide its order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) directed the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.20,88,060/- to respondent No.1 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of respective deposits till realization apart from awarding another amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental & physical agony and Rs.25,000 as litigation expenses.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner filed an appeal before the NCDRC, but since the same had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 300 days, the same was dismissed being time-barred vide impugned order dated

11.08.2025 (Annexure P-1).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the copy of the impugned order passed by the SCDRC i.e. order dated 30.11.2022, was never conveyed to the petitioner although the SCDRC was obliged to convey the same, therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the said order or the reasons assigned therein by the SCDRC for deciding the matter against the petitioner and as such, was prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the rules prescribing limitation ought to be interpreted liberally as the purpose of limitation is not to defeat the ends of justice and rather a fair opportunity should be afforded to the litigants to avail of remedies, particularly the remedy of first appeal. It has been submitted that the petitioner by not filing the appeal in time was not to gain anything, as it was only on account of the fact that he was not aware of the order passed by the SCDRC that the delay had occurred. It has further been submitted that the rules of limitation being rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and not its mistress, particularly when the facts suggest that there would be miscarriage of justice in case the litigant is not afforded opportunity to avail of his right of appeal. Learned counsel in order to hammer-forth his aforesaid submissions has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013)

12 SCC 649 (ii) Rita Kesh Vs. Biswanath Singha, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC

120 (iii) Hemlata Verma Vs. ICICI Prudent Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

(2019 SCC OnLine SC 2451)

(iv) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another Vs. Katiji &

others, (1987) 2 SCC 107

5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. There is no denying the fact that in a fit case where the Courts in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would tend to be liberty in condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant seeking condonation of delay. However, there is no broad yard-stick that