PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1093 of 2011 Rajasthan Residential Board & Ors. Vs. Damodar Lal Garg by which appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent applied for allotment of plinth size plot in outright sale under middle income group Indra Gandhi Nagar (Jagatpura) plan of the OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.50,000/- by bank draft along with application. Plot was allotted to the complainant by letter dated 21.12.2001 and complainant further deposited Rs.35,000/- on 6.3.2008. OP vide letter dated 25.8.2008 intimated to the complainant that he will be given full constructed house instead of plinth level plot. Complainant alleging deficiency filed complaint. OP contested complaint and submitted that OP can change terms and conditions of its plan and as OP decided to provide constructed house instead of plinth size plot, letter was issued to the complainant stating that if complainant does not want to get constructed house, he can receive back money deposited by him and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed petitioner/OP to handover possession of plinth size plot within a month along with compensation and cost and further observed that if complainant consents to take constructed house within a week, the same may be given. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has not dealt with the arguments placed by the petitioner regarding right to amend the policy, hence, petition be accepted and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that District Forum has elaborately discussed contentions of the parties and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of impugned orders reveals that it is not a speaking order and simply it was observed that as there is no error in the order and order passed by District Forum is based on facts, no interference is warranted. 6. Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the learned State Commission is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 19.3.2013. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.