JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants before this Court have challenged two orders of the Telangana High Court. The first is the order dated 19.05.2022, dismissing the application of the appellants filed for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act 1996’). It was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the dispute was pending before a Judicial Authority, which is the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Consumer Forum’), where a complaint has been filed by the other party to the agreement, who is a consumer and therefore the appellants have the option to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for reference before Arbitration. Consequently, the appellants moved an application for referring the dispute for arbitration. The District Consumer Forum dismissed this application on the ground that the complainant has invoked a public law remedy before a “Judicial Authority” under a beneficial legislation for consumers, which is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The 2019 Act”) and therefore under the facts and circumstances of this case, the dispute is non-arbitrable. Consequent to the dismissal of their application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the appellants filed a Review Application before the High Court for review of its earlier order dated 19.05.2022. This Review Application was dismissed vide the second order of the High Court dated 25.11.2022, (which is again impugned before this Court), on the ground that the appellants had already acted upon the order dated 19.05.2022 and therefore is now estopped from seeking review of the order dated 19.05.2022. It is these two orders which are under challenge before this Court.

3. The facts as they stand today are that the complaint filed by the consumer (the sole respondent before this Court), has already been allowed by the District Consumer Forum and the builders (i.e. the appellants before this Court), have been directed to handover the possession of the plot along with the constructed villa and pay a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) and a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with default stipulation. The findings given by the District Consumer Forum disclose the reasons as to why the builder backed out of its promise and made a default:

“.......the opposite party no. 3 had chosen to send the termination notices and sought for execution of cancellation deed knowing that the value of the plot had escalated to more than 10 times from the date of agreement and the opposite parties wanted to take the benefit of such rise in price value. The opposite party no. 3 did not fix any reasonable time for performance of his obligation though time for handing over the possession was agreed by the opposite party no. 3 in the agreement of sale. The opposite party no. 3 had issued termination notice in the year 2020 though he failed to keep his promise of handing over the possession of the Villa by March, 2017.

The failure of the developer, who is also the land owner in the present case, to hand over the possession of the residential property to the complainant-purchaser within the contractually stipulated time count as a deficiency. There exists fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of the action which has been undertaken to be executed in the implementation of the contract with regard to the service to be provided by the opposite parties. The terms of the agreement of sale have been drafted keeping in mind the interest of the developer (opposite party no. 3). The trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice, manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect now of supplies in the market relating t