Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent who appears in person. Respondent was allottee of a commercial shop by petitioner Vikas Parishad and it is not in dispute that he paid all four installments within time. However alleging deficiency in construction and also in the matter of selection of site, a complaint was filed with District Forum seeking refund of deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) alongwith interest. The claim was resisted by petitioner Vikas Parishad. However on evaluation of pleadings of the parties, District Forum directed petitioner for refund of -2- Rs.3 lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- too was awarded by District Forum. What happened thereafter is interesting to note as after an appeal was preferred by aggrieved petitioner Vikas Parishad, State Commission, while staying operation of impugned order of the District Forum on 28th October, 2005, directed petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lakhs within one month with the District Forum. It is not in dispute that to secure compliance of the aforesaid order passed during pendency of proceedings with the State Commission, petitioner deposited a cheque of value of Rs.3 lakhs with District Forum on 22.11.2005. Eventually, matter came for final hearing before State Commission and what happened thereafter is interesting, as State Commission in final order while directing again petitioner to pay Rs.3 lakhs to respondent alongwith 9% interest within a period of two months with a default clause making petitioner liable to pay interest @ 18% also directed petitioner to get refund of Rs.3 lakhs alongwith interest which was in deposit with the District Forum. Baffled with this finding of the State Commission requiring petitioner again to pay Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent notwithstanding Rs.3 lakhs being in deposit with the District Forum, -3- petitioner sought clarification of the order holding inter-alia that as it had already deposited sum required with the District Forum on 22.11.2005, they were not required to pay interest beyond this period even by virtue of default clause in the order. In modification order dated 6th August, 2009 petitioner was again directed to deposit Rs.3 lakhs with the District Forum alongwith interest @ 9% giving liberty to withdraw Rs.3 lakhs which was in deposit with interest. The respondent levied execution proceedings before District Forum, where petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.23,166/-. In revision that was filed by petitioner against aforesaid order passed in execution proceeding, State Commission expressed its view that the order dated 6th August, 2009 be not taken notice of. Learned counsel for petitioner has two fold submissions. Firstly, that when final order was passed by State Commission on submission of Mr. R.K. Mishra, Advocate shown to have appeared on behalf of petitioner, he being junior of Ms. Manjulika Mishra, who had already been removed from panel of the petitioner Vikas Parisad. The second contention raised was that once petitioner had deposited Rs.3 lakhs with the District Forum in compliance of the interim order passed by the State Commission while -4- staying operation of the impugned order, it was not fair for State Commission requiring the petitioner to again deposit Rs.3 lakhs with liberty to withdraw first deposit from District Forum. Per contra, it is sought to be urged on behalf of the respondent that since a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was deposited by petitioner with District Forum in pursuance of compliance of interim order passed by State Commission on 28th October, 2005, it was only a security for preferring appeal before State Commission. I must express that the logic advanced by respondent appears to be quite fallacious as it was not a statutory deposit made by petitioner but it was in pursuance of the interim order passed by the State Commission for stay of operation of impugned order which is usually subject to restitution. Having considered all aspects of the issue, in all fairness, the matter can be disposed of with following observation: - All orders passed by District Forum and State Commission are set aside except that the order dated 25th July, 2005 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.3 lakhs to respondent with 9% interest within two months from 25th -5- July, 2005 failing which petitioner was to pay interest @ 18% p.a. Since petitioner deposited Rs.3 lakhs with District Forum in compliance of the Order, on 22.11.2005 and also handed over a cheque of Rs.4,66,250/- calculating interest @ 9% even beyond the period of two months as per stipulations made in the order, there being defect clause, petitioner is yet required to pay interest to respondent @ 18% beyond the aforesaid period of two months with adjustment of 9% interest already paid. The revision petition in the circumstances is disposed of with this observation with no order as to costs.