01Facts
The Petitioner, a real estate developer, was sued by the Respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) for possession and damages regarding a residential plot
¶ 2–3During the pendency of the complaint, the Petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend its written statement to include subsequent events (offer of possession and cancellation of allotment), which the DCDRC dismissed on 30.05.2024
¶ 4–5The Petitioner challenged this dismissal via a Revision Petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the "Consumer Act") before the State Commission (SCDRC), which was dismissed on 14.01.2025
¶ 5The Petitioner then filed a second Revision Petition before the National Commission (NCDRC), which was dismissed as not maintainable on 16.05.2025
¶ 6The Petitioner subsequently filed the present Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the NCDRC’s order
¶ 102Issues
i.1. Whether a second Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against an order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
¶ 12–14ii.2. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the NCDRC's finding on maintainability
¶ 17–1903Law Applied
Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which empowers the NCDRC to call for records and pass orders in any "consumer dispute" pending before or decided by a State Commission
¶ 7, 12The NCDRC’s precedent in Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. SMT. Mavuram Sujatha, which held that the term "consumer dispute" in this context refers to an original complaint, not a revision
¶ 6, 15The principles of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 as established in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath
¶ 17Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, which mandate that such power be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their authority rather than to correct mere errors of law or fact
¶ 18Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 47Section 51Section 58
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 6Section 39
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioner had already exhausted its revisional remedy before the SCDRC under Section 47(1)(b) against an interlocutory order of the DCDRC
¶ 13Reviewing the statutory scheme, the Court noted that while Section 51(2) of the Act permits a second appeal against appellate orders of the SCDRC, there is no corresponding provision for a second revision
¶ 14The Court clarified that the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC under Section 58(1)(b) is intended for disputes pending in the SCDRC's original jurisdiction, not its revisional jurisdiction
¶ 15The Court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Ghaziabad Development Authority v. R.C. Saxena, preferring the consistent views of the Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, and Orissa High Courts which deny the maintainability of a second revision
¶ 11, 16The Court reasoned that since the NCDRC's view was strictly in accordance with the statute, there was no "palpable error" or jurisdictional overreach warranting intervention under Article 227
¶ 19–2005Holding
The Court held that a second revision petition before the NCDRC is not maintainable against an order passed by the State Commission in its revisional capacity
¶ 14, 16The Court affirmed the NCDRC’s order dated 16.05.2025, finding no justification for interference under its supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed
¶ 16, 20Original Court PDF
Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Now Known As Omaxe Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.vsNitin Saxena
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
