ORDER

Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

RA no.18 of 2026

Ram Achal Singh Sengar ....Review Applicant.

Versus

Dilip Kumar Singh …Opposite Party.

Before,

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

Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

Sri Ram Achal Singh Sengal, the review applicant in person.

None for the opposite party.

Dated : 11.06.2026

ORDER

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

1. This is a review application seeking review of judgment and order dated 11.02.2013 passed in appeal no.200 of 2001, which has been filed with delay of 4709 days.

2- There is an application seeking condonation of delay which has occurred in filing the instant review application.

3- There is an affidavit in support of such application seeking condonation of delay dated 22.01.2026.

4- We have heard Sri Ram Achal Singh Sengar, the review applicant in person.

5- No one has appeared for the opposite party when the matter was taken up for hearing.

6- As per the office report, there is a delay of 4709 days in filing the instant review application, for which the application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed on 22.01.2026.

7- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present application, we propose to decide the instant review application at the stage of admission.

8- As we propose to dispose of the instant review application at the stage of admission, therefore, in view of proposed order notice to the opposite party is hereby dispensed with.

9- The learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that there is a delay of 4709 days in filing the review application which is not intentional but it happened due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, therefore, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned.

10- In the instant case, the appeal no.200 of 2001 was allowed by this State Commission vide order dated 11.02.2013. The instant review application has been filed to review the said order dated 11.02.2013 passed in appeal no.200 of 2001.

11- Having heard the review applicant and upon perusal of record it deserves to be recalled that Section-50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as The Act of 2019) prescribes for preferring a review application. The same, being relevant is quoted herein below :-

“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 face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”

12- It is, thus, clear that a review application is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. According to proviso to Section-50 of The Act of 2019, a review application cannot be entertained after the expiry of said period of 30 days.

13- The test which is to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence or not. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held as under :-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

14- Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” has also observed as under :

“while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditions adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are ente