The present Review Applications have been filed by the Respondent, namely, M/s. Kayjay Construction Co. Ltd./Opposite Party in the Complaints before the State Commission praying for review of the Order dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Commission wherein the First Appeal Nos. 501 to 507 of 2013 filed by the Complainants against the common Order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Goa State Commission dismissing Consumer Complaint Nos. 16 to 22 of 2012, were allowed with the following observations:- “ It is beyond our understanding that without referring to its earlier order dated 15.02.2013 wherein in the identical facts it was held that there was recurring cause of action in the absence of handing over possession to the Complainants, the State Commission in the present cases has taken a different view and dismissed the Complaints as barred by limitation. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that Revision Petition No. 791 of 2013 was filed by the Opposite Party Developer before this Commission questioning the legality of the afore extracted Order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the State Commission condoning the delay in filing the Complaints. However, vide order dated 21.03.2013, the said Revision Petition was withdrawn by the Opposite Party Developer and as such the finding of the State Commission with respect to condonation of delay in filing the Complaints has attained finality. At this juncture, it will be relevant to place reliance upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the case of M/s. Kay Jay Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat Alwani & Anr. (First Appeal No. 153 and 154 of 2015 decided on 04.05.2016) which relates to the same Project. While dealing with the question of delay in filing the Complaints as raised by the Opposite Party in the said cases, this Commission has held as under:- “. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that complaints were barred by limitation; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaints. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in (2009) 5 SCC 121 - State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) in which it was held that if complaint is barred by time, yet decided on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality. We agree with the law laid down in aforesaid case, but it does not help to the complainants. In the case in hand, possession was to be handed over long back, but possession was not handed over till filing of complaints and nothing on record to suggest that OP any time apprised the complainants to take possession of apartment and possession was handed over during pendency of complaints before learned State Commission. Limitation continues till receiving possession of booked apartment and in such circumstances, complaints were within limitation and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing complaints. In catena of the decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission has held that in the cases where possession has not been handed over to the Flat Buyers, there is always a recurring cause of action. Though in the present cases, it has been claimed by the Opposite Party that the possession was handed over to the Complainant in June 2008 through their Power of Attorney but in fact as held by the State Commission in its afore-extracted Order dated 15.02.2013, the possession was not handed over to the Complainants despite having received the full consideration by the Opposite Party Developer. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and especially in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in First Appeal No. 153 and 154 of 2015 (decided on 04.05.2016), we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the First Appeals ought to be remanded back to the State Commission to decide afresh on merits. Resultantly, the Appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Complaints are restored to the Board of the State Commission for disposal on merit.” 02. The review of the Order dated 14.09.2022 has been sought by the Review Petitioner mainly on the grounds that this Commission has committed a grave error in holding that the Complaints were filed within the period of limitation of two years as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and there was recurring of cause of action in the absence of handing over the possession of allotted Apartments/Villas to the Complainants within the specified time. 03. Having perused the afore-extracted Order dated 14.09.2022 and the grounds urged in support of the review of the said Order in the Review Applications, we do not find any substance in the Review Applications inasmuch as all these grounds were duly considered at the time of passing of the Order sought to be reviewed. An order can be reviewed if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. We do not find any such mistake apparent on record. Consequently, the Review Applications are dismissed as devoid of any merit. 04. This Order shall be communicated by the Registry to the Review Applicant. | 
