Counsel for the respondent is not present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte. 

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant was allotted a plot on 30.1.1988.  In the allotment letter, it was mentioned that intimation of the price of the plot would be sent after the costing is done.  It is alleged that in spite of several letters written by the respondent, the petitioner did not do the costing.  On 5.7.1996, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as interim payment.  Plot was allotted to him initially for Rs.85,500/-.  Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,500/- on 30.10.1987.  By a letter dated 10.9.1996, petitioner demanded an additional sum of Rs.94,110/-.  Respondent requested the petitioner to take back the land and pay him damages of Rs.3,75,000/- for the delay, which was not accepted by the petitioner.  Aggrieved against this, the respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and gave the following directions :

“It is open to the complainant to choose one option and inform to the opposite party within a month.  After the intimation of the choice of the complainant than within 3 months the opposite party shall inform to the complainant that how much money is required to be deposited and what formalities are required for handing over possession of the land and in case of delay then the complainant will be entitled for 18% per annum interest.”

          Petitioner did not challenge the order of the District Forum.  State Commission, in the appeal filed by the respondent, directed the petitioners to allot the plot and charge the balance amount against the price/premium of the plot after adjusting the interest accrued to them on the deposited amount of Rs.51,500/-.  Petitioner was further directed to give possession, execute the sale deed and get it registered within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of the order.  It was also held that the petitioner would not be entitled to charge any interest or penal interest etc. from the respondent on the amount mentioned in their letter dated 10.9.1996 and the subsequent letter to that effect dated 6.2.1997.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

          On 20.9.2005, while admitting the Revision Petition, interim direction was issued to the petitioner to hand-over the possession of the plot to the respondent on deposit of Rs.1,07,000/-, which was subject to further directions given by this Commission while disposing of the Revision Petition finally.  The case was listed for final disposal on 18.5.2009.  Both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent were present.  A joint statement was made by the counsel for the parties that the possession of the plot has already been handed-over to the respondent/complainant pursuant to the order passed by this Commission at the admission stage on payment of Rs.1,07,000/- by the complainant.  The case was adjourned for today.  Respondent is not present.  Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Syed Ahmed Saud, states that the possession of the plot has been handed-over to the respondent and in full and final settlement the respondent has paid the sum of Rs.1,07,000/-, which completes the entire consideration amount.  That no amount is due from the respondent to the petitioner.

          As the possession of the plot has already been handed-over to the respondent and the petitioner has received the full consideration amount, this Revision Petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.