PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MR. PANKAJ SHARMA

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed on 08.11.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202511080399) and 24.11.2025 (physically) challenging the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 345/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IX (East District), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092.

2. This order shall dispose of the application i.e. IA/2670/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition, filed along with the revision petition. Affidavit Ms. Malvika Sharma, Legal Manager of the revisionist has been filed along with the application.

3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. Before deciding the present Revision Petition on merits, it has to be seen whether the Revision Petition was filed within the stipulated period provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or whether the revisionist has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present Revision Petition.

5. The revisionist seeks to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition on various grounds. Para No. 3 of IA/2670/2025 reads as follows:

“3. The present Revision Petition is being filed on 26th oct, resulting in a delay of 464 days.

Reasons for Delay:

A. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate nor due to any negligence or malafides on the part of the Petitioner B. The primary reason for the delay was that the Petitioner had no knowledge or information about the proceedings before the Ld. District Commission post the initial service of notice. The impugned ex-parte order was passed on

19.04.2024 without the Petitioner's participation.

C. This lack of knowledge was a direct consequence of an internal restructuring and reassignment of responsibilities within the Petitioner's legal department. This transitional phase inadvertently led to a lapse in the tracking and monitoring of this particular case, and as a result, the Petitioner remained of the ex-parte proceedings and the unaware subsequent order.

D. The Petitioner gained knowledge of the ex-parte order only during a routine internal audit of cases listed on the e-Jagriti portal on 19.09.2025.

E. Immediately upon discovery, the Petitioner took prompt steps to engage counsel and initiated the process for filing the present Revision Petition.

6. To resolve this issue, we first deem it appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005, which provides as follows:

“Section 14 Limitation:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24A, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-

(i) Revision petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the case may be.”

7. From the perusal of the provisions of the Regulation, it is manifestly clear that the Revision Petition has to be filed within 90 days from the date of order. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 19.04.2024 and the present revision petition has been filed on 08.11.2025 (online) and

24.11.2025 (physically) i.e. with a delay of 478 and 494 days respectively.

8. In order to condone the delay, the Revisionist has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the present Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances