This revision petition is filed by Lucknow Development Authority against the order of the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.888 of 2009. The State Commission has allowed the appeal of the Complainant/ Ram Babu Mehrotra against the order of District Forum-II, Lucknow.
2. At the very outset, of the impugned order, the State Commission has observed that:-
“This appears to be second round of litigation between the appellant and the LDA. The complainant filed two companies nos. 735/2000 and 786/2004. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2009 of the District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow, whereby the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the judgment dated 09.07.2001 passed in complaint case no.735/2000 was not complied with by the complainant.”
3. The matter pertains to allotment of house to the Complainant in 1999 by the Lucknow Development Authority. The payment for it was spread over the period 12.4.1999 to 18.6.2001. Allegedly by June, 2001 he had paid a sum of Rs.138,910/-. However, the possession of the house was not handed over to him till the date of the complaint. On the other hand, OP/LDA had contended that the full amount has not been deposited by the Complainant. Physical possession could be given only after he has deposited the entire amount and had executed the agreement.
4. Complaint No.735/2000, as seen from the record, was decided by the District Forum on 9.7.2001 holding that—
“The complainant is directed that if he wants to get the allotment of the flat in question from the Respondents, then in that event, he should deposit the entire instalments as agreed together the prescribed late fee in accordance with the rules of the Authority, otherwise, he should take back his money from the Authority as per rules. In continuation of the same, the respondents/opposite party is also directed that in the even the complainant gives an application to it for taking his money back, then it should give his money to him in accordance with rules alongwith other formalities within a period of one month”
5. In the subsequent Complaint No.786 of 2004, it was prayed that:-
“1. Till a definite date within the time limit physical possession may be granted;
2. In future the opposite party on which date gives the physical possession to the plaintiff till that date on the whole deposited amount 21% interest may be granted because from the allottee on depositing the instalment in delay L.D.A. itself is recovering 21% interest.
3. Unseeing the interests of the plaintiff by the opposite party, for deficiency in service, in making delay in giving the possession along with the damages be awarded in the interest of justice and order may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff.”
6. The District Forum dismissed the complaint with the following observations:-
“As in the present complaint once on the same facts the complaint has been disposed of and the parties have already been directed therefore again on the basis of same dispute the complaint could not be filed. As a result the first comply with the directions of the previous order. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.”
7. In the impugned order, the State Commission has taken note of payments received by LDA, on 2.12.2004 and on 6.3.2007 i.e. subsequent to the decision in complaint No. 735/1000, from the Complainant, which were not taken into consideration by the District Forum, in its order of 28.4.2009. The State Commission has therefore, come to a conclusion that the first order of the District Forum dated 9.7.2001 had been fully complied with by the Complainant. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with costs and registration of the house no.3/438 in Vastu Khand, Gomti Nagar, Phase-2, Lucknow in his favour has been ordered. In this behalf, the revision petition states:-
“The Hon’ble State Commission was of the view that the appellant complied the order dated 9/7/2001 of the district forum in complaint No.735 of 2000 and the appeal was allowed and the judgment dated 28/4/2009 of the district forum was quashed.”
8. We have perused the records and heard learned counsel on behalf of the two parties. The revision petition has been filed with delay. We find from the application for condonation of this delay of 176 days claims that this time was spent in seeking recall of the order of 19.8.2011. But the application does not show the date when the recall application was filed. It merely states that the concerned miscellaneous application was dismissed by the State Commission on 3.4.2012. Significantly, even in the appeal proceedings before the State Commission, the revision petitioner/LDA had chosen to remain unrepresented, despite issue of notice.
9. In another para the petition states that it had sought early hearing of their application for recall of the impugned order. But, their counsel could not appear due to health reason. It is stated “That the counsel for the respondent/LDA could not appear on 19.08.2011, due to his ill health and the ex-parte order was passed and the appeal was disposed of on merits.” We are unable to accept this argument in explanation of the delay as, in any case, a review against the impugned order did not lie before the State Commission. This cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.
10. On the facts, the revision petition mentions that an amount of Rs.1,78,000/- was fixed as the cost of the house no.3/438 in Vastu Khand allotted to the Complainant. It also states that after the District Forum order 9.7.2001, the Complainant had paid Rs.128910/-. The balance remained to be paid with penal interest. As against this, the State Commission has observed that:-
“According to the statement of accounts duly furnished by the LDA, the complainant deposited numerous instalments as shown in the statement of accounts Annexure-30. These deposits were made after date of judgment dated 9.7.2001. A total sum of Rs.1,64,615/- was deposited by the complainant and as is recited in this statement of accounts cum demand notice of the LDA dated 01.12.2004 the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.6,335/-. The complainant complied with the said demand notice and deposited the amount vide challan no.77 dated 2.12.2004. This deposit, demand notice and the statement of accounts were completely ignored by the officials of the LDA. They appear to have further scrutinized the liability of the complainant and arrived at a conclusion vide their further demand notice of 28.02.2007 that still a sum of Rs.7,972/- was outstanding against the complainant. This demand notice too was carried out and vide challan no.76 dated 6.3.2007 (Annexure-33) the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.7,972/-. It is obvious that these deposits were not taken into consideration by the Forum below when the appellant’s complaint was dealt with and dismissed on 28.4.2009.”
The revision petition fails to explain the above categorical observation in the impugned order, which would clearly show that the LDA has already received Rs.178922/- from the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the revision petition fails on merits as well.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is held to be barred by limitation and also devoid of merit. The same is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
