JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners heard. Miscellaneous application moved before the State Commission was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. The complainant/respondent is a defaulter. He did not pay the amount and as such the electric meter was not installed in his premises. It is argued that the cancellation of his allotment was properly done and the learned counsel for the complainant is seeking specific performance of the contract by filing the case against the petitioners. -3- 3. We are of the considered view that all these facts and circumstances require evidence and investigation. The evidence is yet to be led. This petition was moved before the parties were called to lead evidence. Without evidence, it would be too early to give our peace of mind on these complex questions. This case cannot be dismissed out of hand. It cannot be said in which way the wind will blow. The State Commission held: “We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Misc. applicants and have also gone through the materials on record including the agreement in question and in this connection we find much substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, according to whom, from a plain reading of the agreement in question it will reveal that the Misc. Applicants by entering into an agreement with the complainant agreed to develop a housing project thereby effecting construction and annexing usual facilities and that an unilateral cancellation of the agreement will not, ipso fact, render the agreement in question to be non-est. According to the Ld. Advocate, since the refund of the money so advanced was not accepted by the complainant, -4- question of putting much stress on this aspect of the case does not arise at all. Having considered the present Misc. application in the light of above discussion we find no merit in the present Misc. Application, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed. In the result, the Misc. Application fails.” It is however, made clear that all these questions are being kept open. The petitioner is at liberty to lead evidence and argue all these questions before the State Commission at the appropriate time. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
