##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

UTTAR PRADESH

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/9/RA/127/2025

IN

SC/9/CC/57/2023

WITH

SC/9/IA/1190/2025 (INTERIM RELIEF)

Janmejai Mani Tiwari

PRESENT ADDRESS - Flat No. 502, Tower 6, Parsvnath Planet, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

Parsvanath Developers Ltd. and others

PRESENT ADDRESS - 6th Floor, Arunachal Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi,UTTAR

PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Janmejai Mani Tiwari

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Parsvanath Developers Ltd. and others

DATED: 22/12/2025

ORDER

Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

RA no.127 of 2025

Parsvnath Developer Ltd. ....Review Applicant

Versus

Janmejai Mani Tiwari & ors. …Opposite Parties.

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President.

Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate for review applicant.

Sri P.M. Tripathi, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

Ms. Shreyasi Shukla, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.

Dated : 22.12.2025

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President)

1. This is an application seeking review of the order dated 24.1.2025 and

passed in complaint case no.57 of 2023.

2- We have heard Sri Rajesh Chaddha, learned counsel for the review

applicant, Sri P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms.

Shreyasi Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

3- In the instant case, this Commission has dismissed the objection moved by

the review applicant. The instant review application has been filed to review the

said order dated 24.1.2025 passed in Complaint case no.57 of 2023 on the ground

that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order,

therefore, the instant review application deserves to be allowed.

4- Having heard the learned Counsel for the review applicant and upon

perusal of record including the impugned order dated 24.1.2025 passed by this

Commission, we find it relevant to mention that under Section 50 of The

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as The Act of 2019), the

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has power to review its own

orders if there is an error apparent on the face of record. This power can be

exercised either on its own motion or upon an application by a party, provided

the application is filed within 30 days of the order. However, the power to review

is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of record only. In the garb of

review, rehearing or rewriting of the impugned judgment/order is not

permissible. Thus, the State Commission can review its own orders only to

correct errors that are obvious and evident from the record itself. It is, thus, clear

that review is not meant to be rehearing of the case or a way to challenge the

merits of the decision. It is strictly limited to correcting manifest errors. It is also

needless to mention that a review is different from an appeal. An appeal allows a

broader consideration of the case, while a review focuses solely on correcting

errors existing within the record.

5- Section-50 of the Act of 2019 being relevant is quoted herein below:-

Section 50. Review by State Commission in certain cases.-

“The State Commission shall have the power to review any of

the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the fact of

record, either of its own motion or on an application made by

any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”

6- From a bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that the State

Commission shall have power to review any of the order passed by it, if

there is an error apparent on the face of record either on its own motion

or an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such

order. To aforesaid extent this provision is akin to the provision

contained in Order-47 Rule-1 of CPC.

7- While dealing with the scope of review ju