As per the case facts, a developer appealed against an order from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that mandated a refund for excess sale area and the execution of ... supplementary correction deeds for apartments. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to challenge the Commission's directive regarding the refund and the modification of property deeds. The question arose regarding the validity of the National Commission's order requiring a refund for excess sale area and the execution of supplementary correction deeds. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the National Commission's order and judgment, remanding the appeal. It stated that while its observations on limitation are final, the National Commission must freshly consider issues of acquiescence/estoppel and the justification of the increased sale area. The Supreme Court did not provide a specific comment on the application of these principles, leaving it to the National Commission to examine the facts and merits.