National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Jitesh Parwani S/O. Late Shri ... vs Jothibai Kannan And Ors on 8 July, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
NC/RA/107/2025
WITH
NC/IA/8123/2025
(ORAL HEARING)
IN
NC/CC/165/2013
Vishnu Hi-Tech Citizen Welfare Society Complainant
Versus
M/s Shubhalay Villa & Ors. Opp. Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER
Dated : 08.07.2025
ORDER
This review application has been moved by the opposite parties 6 to 8 contending that the order dated 30th April, 2025 deserves to be reviewed as certain facts vital to the adjudication have been omitted to be considered regarding the fixing of joint and several liability under the impugned order.
It is stated that the applicants do not propose to seek rehearing on merits and restricting the review application on the aspect of their liability, and are that they reserve their right to file appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of the merits of the order. It is also stated that the applicants alongwith opposite party No.5 had retired from the opposite party No.2 - partnership firm and therefore there could not be any succession of liability in the wake of the retirements.
To support the said contentions the partnership deeds have been referred to.
At the outset it is admitted in paragraph-25 of the review application that the applicants were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 23.05.2014, 02.01.2015 and 29.08.2016. The opposite party No.5 - Late Vishandas Parwani had been given the opportunity to join the subsequent proceedings.
I -1- Not only this, thereafter, as is evident from the averments made in paragraphs 26 to 30 it has been narrated as follows: -
26. That in 2018, an application seeking deletion of names of the Late Shri Vishandas Parwani and Opposite Party No. 6 and 8 from the array of parties in the CC No.165/2013 and while bringing on record the aforesaid Deed of Retirement from Partnership dated 02.04.2011. It was categorically pleaded in the aforesaid application seeking deletion of names that as per the provisions mutually agreed by the existing and outgoing partners of the Opposite Party No. 2, no liability ought to have been fastened upon the Opposite Party No. 6 and 8, which may arise against the Opposite Party No.2 partnership firm. Copy of the application being IA No.7808/2018 seeking deletion of names is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A -15.
27. That while the application seeking deletion of names being IA No.7808/2018 was pending adjudication before the Hon'hie Commission, Late Shri Vishandas Parwani left for his heavenly abode on 19.01.2020. True copy of the death certificate dated 11.02.2020 issued by Municipal Corporation Bhopai,. is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A -16.
28. That vide order dated 27.08.2021, it was recorded that an application seeking recall of the Order(s) to proceed ex parte shall be filed by the Opposite Party No. 6 and 8. True copy of the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Hon'bie Commission in CC No.165/2013 is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-17
29. That in pursuance of the aforesaid submission, an application was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 8 seeking recall of order dated 02.01.2015 whereby the Opposite Party No.8 was proceeded ex-parte. True copy application being IA No.6285/2021 seeking recall of order dated 02.01.2015 filed by Applicant before the Hon'bie Commission is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXUREA-18
30. That the Hon'bie Commission vide its order dated 28.11.2022, dismissed the application being I.A. No.7808 of 2018 for deletion of name and IA No.6285 of2021 for recall of orders dated 02.01.2015 and29.08.2016 being barred by limitation. True copy of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Hon'bie commission in CC No.165/2013 is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXUREA-19."-3-
The aforesaid paragraphs are self-explanatory and therefore the applicants cannot now seek a review which is virtually in our opinion seeking a rehearing of the entire matter under the garb of a review.
We have taken care of all facts pertaining to the status of the opposite parties as well as the legal impact in respect of the liability that have been detailed in the order itself and for that we reproduce paragraphs-80 & 81 of the impugned order: -
"80. The aforesaid liability has to be shared jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties. In this regard, the argument advanced on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.l, 3 and 4 that they had no such liability has already been dealt with hereinabove in view of the clause 31 of the agreement quoted above. Apart from this, the nature of the agreements between the Opposite Party No.l and the Opposite Party No.2 read with the manner of its execution and terms and conditions that have been highlighted hereinabove leave no room for doubt that the Opposite Parties No.l and 2 along with their partners had undertaken the development of the entire project. Even though, the Opposite Parties No.l, 3 and 4 had the obligation to construct the bungalows/villas/duplex only, and not the high rise building, yet so far as the common facilities, amenities and the deficiencies are concerned, are in respect of the same constructions. If, however, there is no contribution of the Opposite Parties No. 1, 3 and 4 towards the deficiency of the high rise building in particular, then that is a matter to be sorted out between the Opposite Party No.l and the Opposite Party No.2 in terms of their agreement dated 01.02.2007 with which the Complainants are nowhere concerned nor are they parties to the said agreement. There is, therefore, no reason for us to bifurcate or proportion any liability in the present Complaint. From the nature of the agreements and the manner of execution, it is evident that the participation of Opposite Party No.l through its partners is clearly manifest as the very same persons are also partners in the Opposite Party No. 2 firm. Accordingly, there is no reason much less any cogent reason for segregating the liability insofar as the common facilities and the deficiencies, as alleged, have been claimed in the present Complaint.
81. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 8 is that since he had retired from the partnership of Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, he should be absolved of any liability. This argument is to be noted for being rejected inasmuch as the terms of the partnership deed clearly spell out his succession to the partnership and the extent of his share in the partnership which has been extracted hereinabove and highlighted. So far as the documents pertaining to retirement are concerned, as noted above, the Opposite Party No.8 had forfeited his right to file any written statement and, therefore, introducing this fact through IA No.6285/2021 cannot be entertained and, hence, the Opposite Party No. 8 cannot be absolved of his liability, more so when he is the son of the Opposite Party No. 5 and has succeeded to his estate after the death of Opposite Party No. 5 during the pendency of this litigation."
There is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the applications filed by these applicants through a new counsel cannot be entertained.
The Application therefore is misconceived and deserves to be rejected in the light of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 185 wherein the Apex Court in para 15 of the judgment has observed, as under:
"While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment bv which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and _5- principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:
"(i) Review proceedings are not bv wav of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not reouire any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
Reference be had also to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, wherein in Para 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v.State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933, 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L.Gupta v.D.N.Mehta (1971) 3 SCR 748,750. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice:
O.N.Mohindroo v.Distt.Judge, Delhi (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court, by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order XL, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility": Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933."
RA/107/2025 and IA/8123/2025 are accordingly rejected.
* Kh Sd/-
( A.P. SAHI, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
Raj/VM/Court-1/27
t ( DR. INDER JIT SINGH )
MEMBER
i