1.       MA/251/2021 is filed by the Respondents/Complainants against the order passed by this Commission dated 01.10.2021 in Review Application No.224/2019 in First Appeal No.1416/2016 whereby this Commission modified the order dated 13.02.2019 with following observation: -

   “In view of the above, we, in exercise of power of Review, modify the order dated 13.1.2019 and hold that the Respondents are not entitled to the exception made in para 26 of the order and are bound by the orders and direction which are applicable to all other Complainants in the connected Appeals as set out in para 27 and 28 of the order dated 13.2.2018. Review Application is disposed on above terms.”

2.       Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Complainants/Respondents have filed the instant miscellaneous application.

3.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties as well as Respondent No.1 in person and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the submissions of the Applicants were not recorded in the order. This Commission, vide impugned order dated 01.10.2021, disposed of Review Application and modified the judgment dated 13.02.2019, despite there being no error apparent on the face of record and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction of Review. It was also submitted that while modifying the judgment dated 13.02.2019, this Commission failed to appreciate that the Complainants had already purchased another property and living in the said property since 2018. The Complainants, therefore, could not be forced to purchase second property. While modifying the judgment dated 13.02.2019, this Commission also failed to appreciate that the Complainants sought refund of the amount deposited by them, which was also granted by this Commission, vide judgment dated 13.02.2019. This Commission incorrectly observed that the Complainants had given a wrong impression to this Commission at the time of final hearing of FA/1416/2016 that they had purchased another accommodation and did not require the property booked with the Opposite Party. The Complainants purchased another property when they realised that there was delay in delivery of possession by the Opposite Party. It was also submitted that there was delay of 155 days in filing the Review Application and this Commission suo motu condoned the said delay, which was not justified.

4.       Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/non-applicant submitted that the Respondents/Applicants have challenged the order passed in the Review Application, which is not permissible under law. The Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that during the course of final arguments, the Complainants made a false statement that they had already purchased another house after order of the State Commission. On the basis of the false statement made by the Complainants, this Commission, vide order dated 13.02.2019, observed that the said purchase amounted to material change in the circumstances of the Complainants. This Commission, therefore, directed the Opposite Party to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of offer of possession. The Opposite Party filed Review Application No.224/2019 bringing the false statement of the Complainant to the notice of this Commission. This Commission, vide order dated 01.10.2021, disposed of the Review Application and modified the final judgment dated 13.02.2019 with the direction reproduced above. The instant miscellaneous application is nothing but an abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5.       The only issue before us is whether the Complainants/Applicants made a false statement to this Commission at the time of final arguments in FA/14/16/2016, relating to purchase of another property. In this regard, para 26 of the judgment dated 13.02.2019 is relevant, which reads as follows:-

“In the complaint, subject matter of FA/1416/2016, the respondent/complainant stated during the course of arguments that he has already purchased another house after the order of the State Commission. The said purchase, in my opinion, amounts to material change in the circumstances of the said complainant. He having already purchased another house, it will not be fair and reasonable to compel him to accept possession of the flat, which the appellant had allotted to him.”

6.       The Opposite Party challenged the aforesaid finding of this Commission in the Review Application. In order to verify the aforesaid statement of the Complainants, this Commission, vide order dated 15.03.2019, directed the Complainants to file an affidavit disclosing therein the alternative property acquired by them, alongwith supporting documents. This fact is recorded in para 26 of the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in RA/224/2019, which reads as follows: -

“After hearing the Parties, the Complainants were directed to file an affidavit explaining all the facts and circumstances relating to acquisition of a property in Sector 121 of Noida. It transpired from the documents that a residential flat in a project in Noida was booked by the Complainants in February, 2012 in their joint name, whereas the Respondents booked a flat with the Appellant later in the year 2013. The possession of the Noida Flat was taken by the Respondents on 15.6.2018 i.e. after the order passed by the State Commission in September, 2016. It was therefore, evident that the flat in Noida had been booked even before booking of the flat with the Appellant Company, though the possession of the said flat was taken after the orders were passed by the State Commission.”

7.       The issue relating to purchase of alternative/another flat by the Complainant was dealt by this Commission in the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 and the Complainants were granted due opportunity to file an affidavit to establish the fact that they booked another flat due to delay in delivery of possession by the Opposite Party. The Complainants failed to file any supporting document to establish that they purchased another flat due to delay in delivery of possession by the Opposite Party.

8.       The Applicants/Complainants also took the ground that this Commission erred in entertaining the Review Application filed after a delay of 155 days. In this regard, it is important to note that in the impugned order dated 01.10.2021, we have recorded that the Appellant/Opposite Party was granted liberty, vide order dated 18.07.2019 to file an application seeking review/recall/modification within one week. If the Complainants were at all aggrieved by the liberty given to the Opposite Party to file review application, they could have challenged the order dated 18.07.2019, which they failed to do. In the impugned order dated 01.10.2021, we had also recorded that the Review Application was filed in consonance with the orders of this Commission. Now, at this stage, the Complainants are not permitted to raise the objection of limitation in filing the Review Application.

9.       For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is justified. The Complainants/Applicants failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. Moreover, the order passed in the Review Application cannot be challenged by way of miscellaneous application. If the Complainants are aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in RA/224/2019, they can avail the appropriate remedy available to them under law. MA/251/2021 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The Application is accordingly dismissed.