Mr. Alexander Thomas And Anr vs Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. And Anr

$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 05 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010540362026
+ W.P.(C) 16607/2026 & CAV 528/2026, CM APPL.
77832/2026, CM APPL. 77833/2026
MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh Dhingra,
Adv.
versus
IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Roohe Hina Dua, Ms.
Yashika Kapoor & Ms. Ruchi
Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 14.09.2026
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(‘ NCDRC ’) in Revision Petition No. NC/RP/833/2026, whereby the
order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (‘ DSCDRC ’) declining to take the written
statement of Respondent no. 1 on record, was set aside.
2. Succinctly stated, it is the case of the petitioner, that the
petitioners had instituted a consumer complaint before the DSCDRC
3. On 27.08.2025 and the Respondent No. 1 was served with the
notice of the complaint on 24.09.2025. The petitioners contend that,
despite the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 1 of 8

the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Respondent no. 1 failed to file its
written statement within the permissible period i.e. before 08.11.2025
and that the written statement was ultimately placed on record only in
February, 2026.
4. The case set up by Respondent no. 1, on the other hand, was that
the written statement had already been electronically tendered on
04.11.2025, i.e. within the period of 45 days (i.e. 30 days statutory
period + 15 days statutory grace period) prescribed under the aforesaid
provision. It was further explained that, owing to a technical glitch in
the filing process, the written statement had to be tendered again on
06.11.2025 which is also within the statutory grace period.
Respondent no. 1 relied upon the electronic filing reference numbers
generated on the respective dates in support of its explanation.
5. The State Commission, vide order dated 27.05.2026, declined to
accept the explanation furnished by Respondent no. 1 and rejected its
application seeking condonation of delay. It proceeded on the basis
that the written statement had been filed on 20.02.2026, substantially
beyond the period prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, and consequently directed that the written
statement be taken off the record.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Respondent no. 1 approached
the NCDRC in revision. During the proceedings before the NCDRC,
the specific issue which arose for consideration was whether the
written statement had, in fact, been electronically tendered before the
State Commission on 04.11.2025. The NCDRC, vide order dated
01.09.2026, directed its IT Section to make an appropriate inquiry and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 2 of 8

verify the electronic filing from the State Commission. The matter
was thereafter considered upon hearing the parties and examining the
material placed before it.
7. By the impugned order dated 14.09.2026, the NCDRC accepted
the explanation furnished by Respondent no. 1 that the written
statement had been electronically tendered on 04.11.2025, within the
prescribed period, and that the subsequent filing was occasioned by a
technical glitch. Thus, noting that substantive compliance was made
and procedural defects were not delved into by the SCDRC, the
NCDRC, set aside the order passed by the SCDRC and permitted the
written statement to be taken on record. The relevant extract is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“18. We have considered the submissions raised and we
also find that the State Commission vide impugned order has
presumed that the filing was after 151 days. With the aforesaid
facts on record, the admitted position is that the reply was e-
filed on 04.11.2025, but the delay condonation application in a
combined format was filed on 06.11.2025 itself. This has been
confirmed by the IT section, and is also evident from the
pleadings of the parties. Para 8 of the reply of the respondent
quoted above admits of the delay condonation having been
filed on 06.11.2025. The objection taken by the respondent that
it could not have been filed in a combined way, and therefore
the same cannot be accepted in view of the provisions
prescribed by the Delhi High Court and the Rules framed
thereunder. We will not enter into the issue of the applicability
of the rules, but even applying the principles indicated therein,
the filing of a delay condonation application in a combined
format is only an alleged procedural defect. The heading of the
filing portal as “subsequent filing” will not dissolve the fact of
actual filing. Once it is admitted that the delay condonation IA
had been filed and re-uploaded on 06.11.2025. there is
substantive compliance. The calculation made by the State
Commission of a delay of 151 days is incorrect as indicated
above. The notice stood served on 24.09.2025 and therefore the
30th day falls on 24.10.2025. The reply having been filed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 3 of 8

04.11.2025 and the application for condonation along with the
reply having been re-uploaded on 06.11.2025 confirms the filing
on the 13th day after the expiry of 30 days.
19. In our opinion, the delay condonation application
had therefore been clearly filed within the 15 days grace
period on 06.11.2025, and the cause had been shown in the
delay condonation application . The State Commission has
noticed the explanation given for the delay in paragraph 9 of the
impugned order, but did not consider either the sufficiency or
insufficiency of the cause shown and proceeded to assume the
delay of 151 days without adverting to the cause shown by
simply using the phrase “be that as it may”. We find this to be a
material irregularity, in as much as the issue as to whether there
was any technical fault or procedural defect as debated before
us hereinabove has not even been discussed by the State
Commission. The State Commission had simply brushed aside
the said facts, which were a matter of record whereas the State
Commission could itself have inquired into the correct status of
the filing, which it did not choose to do. We find this to be once
again a material irregularity that has caused prejudice to the
petitioner whose written version had been filed, in our opinion
well within the 15 days of grace period beyond 30 days, as laid
down in the procedure prescribed under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 and as explained by the Apex Court in the
case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage (supra). It is trite that procedure is
only a handmade of justice and therefore the same should come
to the aid of adjudication as far as permissible under law. We
find that substantial compliance has been made by the
petitioner and therefore rejection of the written version / reply
of the petitioner, filed within the grace period of 15 days,
would work injustice in the event the submission raised on
behalf of the respondents are accepted. The fundamental rules
of natural justice, in our opinion, deserve to be observed on the
facts of the present case by providing opportunity to the
petitioner to plead his case. The arguments advanced on
behalf of the respondents, therefore, are untenable and are
accordingly rejected.
20. The delay, in our opinion, had been sufficiently
explained, but the State Commission even though having noted
it in para 9 of the impugned order, failed to consider the same
and therefore this error amounts to an omission and failure to
exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. The delay having
been sufficiently explained, and being within the 15 days grace
period, the interim application moved by the petitioner to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 4 of 8

condone the delay deserves to be allowed. We therefore hold
that the impugned order suffers from an illegality based on an
erroneous calculation as discussed above that deserves to be
cured and we allow IA No. 497 of 2026 filed by the petitioners
praying for condoning the delay of taking their written
submission on record.
21. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned
order dated 27.05.2026, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is
set aside and the State Commission shall take the written
version filed by the petitioner on record.
22. The respondent complainant shall have three weeks'
time to file a rejoinder to the same, and the parties shall appear
before the State Commission on 05.10.2026. The State
Commission shall then proceed to grant time as per its
discretion to allow the parties to file their evidence and then
proceed accordingly.”
8. This Court has perused the impugned order, the reasoning
adopted by the NCRDC and the material placed on record.
9. Undisputedly the statutorily prescribed limit is of 30 days for
filing the written statement, which is extendable up to an additional 15
days i.e. the grace period. There can be no dispute with the
proposition that the period prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for filing the written statement/reply
is required to be adhered to.
10. However, the narrow controversy, in the present case, is only
whether the written statement had, in fact, been tendered within the
said period.
11. In this regard, the table encapsulating the filing history as per the
petitioner itself, would be beneficial, which is reproduced herein
below: -
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 5 of 8

12. A bare perusal of the above demonstrates that, it remains
undisputed that the Notice was received on 24.09.2025 and the period
of 30 days expired on 23 – 24.10.2025, while the additional grace
period of 15 days extended up to 08 – 09.11.2025. Thus, the Written
Statement/reply was to be filed before 08/09.11.2025. Notably, the
Petitioner does not dispute that the Reply was e-filed on 04.11.2025,
and only a technical objection has been raised that the same was not
properly filed i.e. with a condonation of delay application. It is further
the petitioner’s own case that on 04.11.2025 itself, the condonation of
Delay Application was also filed, however, no I.A. number was
generated as the same was not filed under the proper field. Then again
on 06.11.2025, the Reply was filed physically; and the Reply along
with the condonation of delay was also filed, though, as per the
petitioner, no number was generated since it was filed in the wrong
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 6 of 8

field.
13. Thus, considering the above, even taking the best case of the
Petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the approach
adopted by the NCRDC, that once it is admitted that the Reply was
filed within the 45 days period i.e. before 08 – 09.11.2025 , the same
has also been verified from the IT Section, substantive compliance
was done, and the delay was sufficiently explained by the Respondent,
the procedural defect does not dissolve the fact of actual filing before
the expiry period. The Respondent should not be prejudiced only due
to difficulties in the electronic filing process.
14. The objections raised by the petitioners essentially invite this
Court to undertake a fresh examination of the filing history and the
procedural aspects relating to the registration of the written statement
and the accompanying application. This Court does not find it
appropriate to re-examine the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. It is also relevant to note that the controversy concerns the taking
on record of the written statement filed. The same merely sets out the
defence of the opposite party and does not, in itself, determine the
rights of the parties in the consumer complaint. The petitioners would
have adequate opportunity to controvert the defence raised therein and
advance their own submissions before the State Commission. No
prejudice warranting interference with the impugned order has been
demonstrated.
16. The object of prescribing timelines for filing written statements
before Consumer Commissions is to ensure expeditious adjudication
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 7 of 8

of consumer disputes. That very object would be defeated if
interlocutory disputes concerning the procedural aspects of filing
result in successive rounds of litigation, thereby delaying adjudication
of the consumer complaint itself. In the facts of the present case, this
Court finds no justification to prolong the controversy any further.
17. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with the impugned order dated 14.09.2026 passed by the NCDRC.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to
the issue of taking the written statement on record and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the consumer
complaint. All contentions of the parties in that regard are left open.
19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
20. The order be placed forth the appropriate authority for
compliance and for fixing a date to appear before the State
Commission.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 16607/2026 Page 8 of 8