All these revision petitions have been filed assailing the orders passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeals whereby the appeals have been dismissed as being beyond limitation and the delay having not been properly explained.  The appeals had been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum/Commission, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) whereby the complainants respondents had been awarded refund of the amount paid by them in respect of certain residential plots in Rajajinagar Layout, Lingambudhi Village, Mysuru.  In all the revision petitions the complaints have been allowed by the District Commission and similarly the appeals filed by the revisionist have been dismissed on the same grounds.  The present revision petitions have been filed after a delay of 670 days in the year 2022.

The allotment of the sites commenced in the year 2006.  It appears that such similar allottees had also filed complaints that were allowed by the District Commission against which the appeals filed by the revisionist came to be dismissed and then the revision petitions were preferred before this Commission.  A copy of the order in Revision Petition No. 463 of 2016 (Syed Nizam Ali, Managing Director, M/s Mysuru Home Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. K.Y. Guruprasad) and other connected matters, decided on 29.02.2016, has been made available keeping in view the orders passed on 21.06.2024 by this Commission.  

A perusal of the said order demonstrates that the same dispute was under consideration and the revision petitions have been dismissed on merits.

It is thus evident that the same issues have already been decided finally by this Commission in the revision petitions referred to hereinabove way back in 2016.

The present revision petitions were instituted in the year 2022 presumably because of the pendency of the matter before the State Commission in appeals of the year 2017 against the orders of the District Commission that seems to have been disposed of in January 2017.

Learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. Aslam Khan appeared and argued that the delay deserves to be condoned as the Covid period was involved and therefore the benefit of the order/judgment passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation should be extended.

Be that as it may, other revision petitions have been finally disposed of by this Commission as narrated hereinabove and in such circumstances there is justification for seeking condonation of delay.  However, since the matter stands covered by the decision of this Commission, there is no point in continuing to entertain the revision petitions as the revisionist has hardly any claim on merits.  The revision petitions therefore deserve to be disposed of without any relief to the revisionist except that the amounts which the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that has already been paid off to the complainants respondents should be adjusted, and the impugned orders have to be upheld.

Learned counsel urged that the rate of interest be varied as it has been awarded on higher side.  We see no reason to vary the rate of interest as awarded in the connected matters and referred to hereinabove.  Accordingly, there being no distinction either on facts or law, the revision petitions cannot succeed except for the observation that any amount paid by the revisionist shall stand adjusted towards the decretal amount.

All the revision petitions are disposed of subject to the above observations.