Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 14.06.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short tate Commission in appeal No. 4506/2010. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the complainant against the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint no. 2928/2009 by which order the said District Forum had dismissed the complaint. In appeal, the State Commission has not only allowed the appeal but also the complaint with direction to the petitioner herein to refund jointly and severally the amount paid by the appellant, i.e., Rs.1,60,000/- together with interest @18% p.a. from the date of receipt of payment till realisation with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. We have heard Mr. Aditya Narain, Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite due service of notice through registered AD post and a sum of Rs.7,500/- have been duly remitted and received by the respondent to meet travel and allied expenses. In the circumstances, we had not the advantage of hearing of say of the respondent. On the first date of hearing it was represented by the counsel for the petitioner before us that the petitioner is willing and prepared to execute the conveyance did of the plot in question which was given to the respondent on complementary basis, on his becoming the member of the petitioner scheme provided the respondent was prepared to bear the expenses in connection with the administrative charges, stamp duty and registration charges, etc. Consequently, notice was issued on the above aspect. The present case has a somewhat chequered history inasmuch as we notice that before filing complaint, the complainant had filed a complaint no. 1835 / 2009 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.09 by observing as under:- his is a complainant presented by the complainant against the OPs for a direction to OPs to execute the sale deed in pursuance of allotment letter issued by the OP2 allotting a site. Heard the counsel for complainant and perused the records. The complainant in support of his claim has relied upon a letter of allotment issued by the OP2 on 21/06/2008 and thereby sought for the direction to OP2 to execute the sale deed. The complainant found to have forgotten his part of duty to be performed under the allotment letter by paying Rs.15,000/- to the OP2 within the time stipulated therein. Therefore, when the complainant himself has not complied the conditions of the allotment letter, he cannot complaint any deficiency against the OPs. If the complainant had aggrieved upon the claim made in the allotment letter would have send a reply by denying the claim for money. When the complainant has not performed his part of obligation under the allotment letter then OP is not obliged to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the complainant has got no cause of action to file this complaint and as such the complainant is directed to comply the conditions under the allotment letter and on doing so, if OPs fails to execute the sale deed or to meet his legal claim then the complainant is at liberty to approach this forum for their relief. Hence, the complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission. It appears that no appeal was filed by the complainant against the said order. However, in view of the liberty granted or right preserved to the complainant, he filed a fresh complaint no. 2928/2009, which met the same fate because the District Forum held that the limited dispute raised in the complaint was as to whether the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards administrative charges, stamp duties and registration charges for the execution of the conveyance deed in his favour or he was entitled for relief without paying said amount. The dispute was also whether a sum of Rs.15,000/- has already been paid by the complainant while paying the membership fee in consideration for two other plots offered by the petitioner to him. 3. In our view, having regard to the limited controversy raised in the two complaints, the State Commission has gone beyond its jurisdiction to grant the kind of relief, i.e., refund of the amount alongwith interest @18% p.a. as has been granted in the appeal. The impugned order is not legally sustainable and needs to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside. However, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner even if before this Commission, we direct the petitioner to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the plot in question in favour of the complainant within a period of two weeks with effect from the date of receipt of amount of Rs.15,000/- which shall be paid by the complainant within a period of four weeks. If the complainant / respondent fails to pay Rs.15,000/- it will not be obligatory on the part of the petitioner to execute the sale-deed. The revision petition stands disposed off in above terms. Copy of this order be forwarded to the respondent immediately.