Aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned order was passed by the State Commission in RP No. 10/95 against order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by which order the said District Forum had appointed a court commissioner (Registrar of the District Forum) to execute the conveyance deed on behalf of the Opposite Party / Judgement Debtor. The State Commission has dismissed the said revision petition by making the following observations / findings :- n the background of the circumstances stated above, we find the cause of this revision petition does not survive sine action was already executed. Besides that, if the Revisionist wants to challenge the legality of the conveyance deed executed, within permissible limits of the law he can do so, but , that cannot be a subject matter of the issue involved in this Revision Petition as well as in the consumer complaint. Consequently, we find no reason to admit this Revision Petition and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:- (i) Revision petition is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly. (ii) No order as to costs. 2. We have heard Mr. Dnyanaraj Sant, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner society and Mr. Prashant Mallinath Maindargi, counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. Since it was admitted that a sale / conveyance deed of the property, in question, has already been executed by the respondent builder in favour of the petitioner society, we called upon the respondent to file a copy of the conveyance deed which was executed and which they claim as having been circulated to the complainant / petitioner before execution of the conveyance deed, copy of which has been filed. 3. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the revision petition before the State Commission are amply noted in the order passed by the District Forum, which was impugned before the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that a conveyance deed was, in fact, executed by the respondent builder pursuant to the order of the District Forum by appointing a Court Commissioner for executing the conveyance deed on behalf of the petitioner / complainant but he submits that the execution of such a conveyance deed was wholly improper and unwarranted firstly, for the reason that no notice of the application moved by the respondent seeking the appointment of court commissioner for execution of conveyance deed on behalf of the petitioner / complainant society was given to the petitioner and the order came to be passed on their back. His main submission, however, is that certain objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner against the draft conveyance deed including the objection with regard to the non-inclusion of the services like club house etc. which were required to be transferred to the complainant society. The said objections were not decided and the draft conveyance deed put forth by the developer builder was executed which has caused great prejudice to the case of the complainant / petitioner society. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent submits that Court Commissioner was appointed by the District Forum with the consent of the petitioner and the conveyance deed was prepared and executed strictly in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartments Ownership Act, 1964 and, therefore, it cannot be faulted on any count. 5. Having regard to the respective submissions, we are of the view that the District Forum has not bestowed its consideration as was required to the whole gamut of controversy, in particular, about the objections raised by the petitioner to the draft of the conveyance deed circulated and then executed by the respondent before ordering the execution of conveyance deed through a Court Commissioner. We failed to understand as to why a complainant who had achieved an order in its favour would be reluctant to get the conveyance deed in their favour. We are, therefore, of the view that order passed by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission on a wholly incorrect interpretation has resulted into miscarriage of justice need to be set aside and the matter needs to be reconsidered by the District Forum. 6. In view of above, we partly allow the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and remand back the execution proceedings to the particular District Forum for deciding the question afresh more particularly for deciding the objections raised by the petitioner society to the draft conveyance deed which was circulated earlier. Based on the said consideration and decision, it would be open for the District Forum to make such further directions for execution of a fresh / additional conveyance deed or for executing an addenda to the conveyance deed already excuted. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum, Pune on 07.08.2012 for further directions. Needless to mention that we have not examined the question as to whether the sale / conveyance deed executed is proper or improper or is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original agreement and the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1964. These questions are left open for consideration of the District Forum. 6. Records of the fora below, if any, be returned forthwith. Parties to bear their respective costs in these proceedings.