We have gone through impugned judgment rendered by the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal No.284 of 2009 and directed the revision petitioner to accept the remaining part of the consideration and execute the sale deed in order to transfer the plot Nos.11 and 12 in Surendra Vihar Yojana, Gram Bag Mugaliya, Bhopal in favour of the respondent (appellant before the State Commission).

          The counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the agreement between the parties could not be enforced when the matter was in respect of the breach of the terms of the agreement and was only covered under the special provisions of specific relief act. He seeks to rely on certain observations in the case of Mangi Lal Vs. T. Marappa & Ors., II (2011) CPJ 95 (NC). In the given case there was agreement between private parties for sale of a piece of land. This Commission held that the dispute was only in respect of discharge obligation under the said agreement and therefore, it could not be treated as a consumer dispute. In the present case, the agreement between the parties is placed on record along with reply filed by the respondents. Perusal of the agreement purposed to show that the revision petitioners agreed to sale the plot in question to the respondents and also agreed to provide external electricity, external development under the ground tank etc. So far as the terms of agreement are concerned, we may notice that there was no time schedule provided. The relevant clause No.4 in the agreement reads as follows:-

 “In case the instalments are not paid timely by the purchaser he was to pay interest @ 24% per annum and the same will be recovered. Adjusted at the time of possession of the plot but delay will not be allowed beyond 15 days and in that case the purchaser and then deal will be treated as cancelled.”

       Perusal of the above stipulation in the agreement reveals that the payment was to be made at the time of delivery of possession and delay in payment beyond 15 days at the relevant time could have entailed cancellation of the agreement. In absence of any specific demand made by the revision petitioners, there was no question of deemed cancellation of the agreement. 

          Having regard to the fact that certain services were required to be provided by the petitioners it will have to be held that the said dispute is a consumer dispute. We are of the opinion that the authority cited on behalf of the revision petitioners does not cover fact situation of the present case. The impugned order reveals that the revision petitioners had not actively taken part in the proceedings of the consumer complaint nor any material was placed on the record to show that the amount due was demanded by them from the respondents. Having regard to non-participation in the consumer complaint and failure to show as to how the cancellation

of the agreement could be deemed as authentic. We do not find any serious error committed by the State Commission, hence the petition is dismissed. No costs.