We dispose of these two revision petitions by a common order as Revision Petition No.3461/2009 has been filed against the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal filed by the Respondent whereas Revision Petition No.3478/2009 is directed against the order passed in the execution proceedings. Complainant/Respondent as per the averments made in the complaint agreed to purchase flat No. F-1 from the petitioner/builder for Rs.10 Lakhs and paid Rs.4 Lakhs by way of cheque as well as cash. No formal agreement for sale was executed. Later on the petitioner sold the flat to third party without informing the complainant/respondent and possession was also handed over to the third party. Respondent issued a notice to the petitioner demanding refund of the amount to which a vague reply was given. Being aggrieved respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum dismissed the complaint being barred by time. District Forum did not decide the complaint on merits. Complainant/Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum holding that the complaint was filed within limitation. Instead of remanding the case back to the District Forum to decide it afresh in accordance with law, State Commission proceeded to decide it on merits. The complaint was allowed and the petitioner was directed to refund the sum of Rs.4 Lakhs to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 18th September, 1997 till realization. Rs.20,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost. In the meanwhile, respondent filed an execution application. Execution application was allowed, aggrieved against which petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed. In these circumstances, these two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner one against the order passed in the complaint and other in the execution application. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation. District Forum did not decide the complaint on merits. State Commission after coming to the conclusion that the complaint was filed within limitation, should have remitted the case to the District Forum to decide it afresh after letting the parties to produce their evidence. Instead the State Commission without taking any evidence decided the case on the basis of the pleadings only. Since the State Commission decided the case on merits without letting the parties to lead their evidence the order of the State Commission insofar as it decided the case on merits is set aside and the case is remitted back to the District Forum to decide it afresh after letting the parties to lead their evidence in respect of their respective claims. District Forum shall proceed to decide the complaint taking the same to be within limitation in terms of the order passed by the State Commission. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 2.4.2013. Since it is an old case, we direct the District Forum to decide the complaint within four months of the date of appearance. R.P.3478/2009 In view of our order passed in R.P. No.3461/2009 setting aside the order of the State Commission, the order passed in execution application is set aside and the execution application is dismissed being infructuous.