PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 153/08 UDA Vs. Rama Nand Dhaka by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted plot no. 2632 in Sector 18, Panipat vide Memo dated 30.07.1998. As the OP/respondent failed to develop the area and deliver actual physical possession, complainant filed complaint No.61/2002 before District Forum, Panchkula seeking refund of the deposited amount along with interest and compensation. OP contested complaint, but learned District Forum vide order dated 25.3.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP to refund deposited amount with 10% p.a. interest along with Rs.1,000/- as costs. Order of District Forum was challenged before State Commission in Appeal No.1578/2003 which was dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous vide order dated 6.1.2006, as parties compromised the matter and complainant agreed to receive payment with 9% p.a. interest instead of 10% per annum interest allowed by the District Forum. Complainant withdrew Execution Petition filed before District Forum on 25.3.2003 and OP sent cheque of Rs.4,86,125/- to the complainant, but complainant instead of receiving the amount filed second complaint No. 82/2007 and claimed relief to retain the plot in question on the ground that financial position of the complainant had improved. OP contested complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable in view of principle of res judicata and further submitted that in the earlier complaint order for refund of amount had already been passed; the question of retaining the plot by the complainant by taking turn does not lie and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to receive due payment towards plot no. 2632 and pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. OP filed appeal against the order of District Forum which was allowed vide order dated 15.7.2011 and complaint was dismissed. Complainant filed Revision Petition No. 3023/2011 before National Commission and this Commission vide order dated 26.2.2013 set aside order of State Commission and matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. After remand, learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and complaint was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as Appeal No. 153/2008 was filed with delay of 90 days and as earlier order dated 15.7.2011 of State Commission was set aside by National Commission, it was obligatory on the part of State Commission to pass fresh order on application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission has not condoned delay by the impugned order. It was further submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground of res adjudicata; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Perusal of order dated 15.7.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.153 of 2008 clearly reveals that after hearing both the parties, delay of 90 days in filing appeal was condoned and by the same order, appeal was allowed on merits on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. This Commission vide order dated 26.2.2013 allowed revision petition holding that District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and in such circumstances, order dated 15.7.2011 passed by learned State Commission was set aside and case was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 6. Perusal of order of this Commission clearly reveals that this Commission has not given any finding contrary to the order of State Commission regarding condonation of delay meaning thereby, condonation of delay by State Commission has not been set aside by this Commission vide order dated 26.2.2013 and matter was remanded back to State Commission to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. In such circumstances, no fresh order was required to be passed by State Commission regarding condonation of delay merely because order condoning delay in filing appeal is also part of order dated 15.7.2011 passed by learned State Commission. 7. Learned State Commission vide impugned order has rightly held that after acceptance of first Complaint No. 61/2002 and the order being complied with, the complainant ceases to be a onsumerand no cause survived for the complainant to file second complaint. It was rightly observed that once the grievance of the complainant was redressed in earlier complaint, complainant should not have asked for allotment of plot on the ground of improved financial position. Learned State Commission also rightly observed that merely because order of District Forum dated 16.1.2008 has been complied with due to non-grant of stay by the State Commission, the same does not confer any right to the complainant when validity of the order of District Forum was under challenge before the State Commission. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal on the ground of res judicata. He has also placed reliance on (1985) 3 SCC 648 Jaswant Singh and Anr. Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi in which it was held that - n order to decide the question whether a subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata it is necessary to examine the question with reference to the (i) forum or the competence of the Court, (ii) parties and their representatives, (iii) matters in issue, (iv) matters which ought to have been made ground for defence or attack in the former suit and (v) the final decision. In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the relief which he is now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit or proceedings This citation rather supports the case of OP/respondent because in both the complaints District Forum was competent forum and same parties were before the District Forum. Matter in issue was the same and complainant had an opportunity of claiming possession of the plot, but instead of that he prayed for refund of the amount which was refunded to him as per compromise entered between the parties in State Commission and execution petition filed by the complainant before District Forum was disposed of in the light of compromise arrived at between the parties. In such circumstances, subsequent complaint fell within the purview of res judicata and subsequent complaint was not maintainable. 9. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.