In this Revision Petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ctby the Petitioner/Opposite Party, there is challenge to order dated 30.11.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Comission, Punjab, Chandigarh(for short, tate Commissionin (Appeal No. 459 of 2008). 2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint against the petitioner before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short, istrict Forum asserting that that he had purchased plot no.418, measuring 500 sq.yds. in Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, from Sh. M.P.Singh and Smt. Gurdip Kaur, who had purchased the said plot in open auction held on 12.12.2003 conducted by the respondent. The said plot was transferred in the name of the respondent after following the proper procedure. The original allottees had not signed the bid form of auction inadvertently, for which original allottees were informed vide memo no.5395 dated 07.06.2005. Thereafter, they signed the bid form and thereupon petitioner processed the case for transfer of the plot. Subsequently, permission for transfer of the plot was issued in favour of the respondent, vide memo no.5606 dated 13.06.2005 and re-allotment letter was issued in his favour. There was no legal impediment in handing over the possession of the plot in question to him. After the re-allotment letter, respondent deposited the installment which was due on 12.06.2005 for a sum of Rs.2,64,063/- vide Pay Order dated 10.06.2005 and the same was received vide receipt dated 13.06.2005. The next installment for an amount of Rs.2,51,875/-was deposited vide Pay Order dated 02.12.2005. Thereafter, respondent deposited the installments as per the payment schedule and only one installment was due which was to be paid by 12.06.2007. 3. It is further stated that as per Clause-4 (i) of the original allotment letter, the possession was to be handed over to the allottee within 90 days of the issue of the allotment, provided 25% of the saleable price has been paid. The original allottees due to escalation in prices, objected to the re-allotment of the plot in favour of the respondent and the objection was rightly rejected by the petitioner vide communication dated 19.10.2005. Respondent wrote various letters to the petitioner to hand over the possession of the plot, but no possession letter was received. The original allottees also filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, but no stay was granted in their favour. The refusal on the part of the petitioner to hand over the possession to the respondent amounts to gross deficiency in service. Respondent has not been able to start the construction, since petitioner has refused to hand over the possession of the plot in question. 4. Thus it was prayed that petitioner be directed to deliver the possession of plot no.418, measuring 500 sq. yds.,Urban Estate Phase-I, Patiala and to pay the different in cost of construction which works out to be Rs.10,93,750/-, had the possession been given in the year 2005 and to pay compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs. 5. In the written statement, petitioner has taken certain preliminary objections. It is stated that respondent has not come to the forum with clean hands. The civil suit is pending between the respondent and the original allottees on the question of ownership. Till the ownership is decided, petitioner cannot do anything as such delivery of possession was not made to either of the parties, as it will amount multiplicity of litigation. The present complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. 6. On merits, petitioner has admitted that respondent had purchased the plot in question and petitioner allowed the transfer of the plot in question after going through the records presented before it. Since, there was a dispute between the parties, hence delivery of possession could not be made until the orders are issued by the civil court. 7. District Forum, after hearing the parties and going through the record, partly allowed the complaint vide its order dated 12.2.2008 and; irected the opposite party to hand over the possession of the plot No.418 measuring 500 Sq. Yards, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala immediately subject to the decision of the civil suit pending between the original allottees and the complainant under the circumstances, however, parties are left to bear their own costs. 8. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, respondent had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed it. In addition to the relief granted by the District Forum, the State Commission also allowed Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac only) as escalation of construction cost due to late delivery of the possession. 9. It may be pertinent to point out that petitioner did not challenge the order of the District Forum and as such the same has become final qua it. 10. Hence, this revision. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 12. It has been contended by the learned counsel that instead of waiting for the outcome of the suit filed by the original owners before the Civil Court, respondent filed misleading appeal before the State Commission. The possession of the plot in question, had already been handed over to the respondent on 4.6.2008 in compliance with order dated 12.2.2008, of the District Forum. Under these circumstances, the State Commission without finding any deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner-Authority, had saddled it with unwarranted liability to compensate the respondent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. The District Forum in this regard held; The case of the opposite party is that the original allottes have filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the complainant for determining the ownership of the plot no.418 wherein ownership of the complainant has been challenged on the ground of forgery, fraud and cheating on the part of the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite party that opposite party being one of the defendants in the civil suit is not free to act injudiciously. The perusal of the record shows that the opposite party has not placed on record any stay order form the civil court barring the opposite party to deliver the possession of the disputed plot to the complainant. When the complainant has paid the installments of the disputed plot after re-allotment letter, Ex.C-2, then there is no bar for delivering the possession of the disputed plot to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 14. The State Commission while allowing the appeal of the respondent in its impugned order has observed; s discussed above, there was no stay order of the civil court produced, nor the original allottee M.P. Singh filed any affidavit in support of his complaint, as demanded by the respondent and no civil court order was produced to show that the original allottees succeeded in their contentions raised before the civil court. As per the respondent, the original allottee came present in person in the office of the respondent to sign the bid form and after signing the bid form, the plot in question was transferred in the name of the appellant. All this happened in the month of September, 2005 and as per the appellant, the possession has been delivered after passing of the impugned order under appeal dated 12.02.2008. The appellant has not mentioned any exact date of the handing over of the possession, but definitely during these three years, there has been escalation of prices. 15. Averments made by the respondent/complainant in Para No.5 and 6 of the Complaint states; . That after the re-allotment letter had been issued, the complainant duly deposited the instalment which was due on 12.06.2005 for an amount of Rs.2,64,063/- vide local pay order No.073250 dated 10.06.2005 to OP received by it vide receipt No.6 dated and thereafter the complaint deposited next instalment for an amount of Rs.2,51,875/- vide pay order No.73633 dated 02.12.2005. Evidencing the payments by intalments are documents annexed as Annexures C-3 & C-4 respectively. Thereupon, in accordance with the payment schedule of the re-allotment letter, the complainant deposited the same in time and only one instalment is due which is to be paid by 12.06.2007. 6. That as per Clause 4(i) of the original allotment, letter, possession is to be handed over to the allottee within 90 days of issue of allotment provided 25% of the saleable price has been paid 16. The corresponding reply to the above paras of the Complaint, filed by the petitioner as per its written statement states ; . That the contents of para 5 of the complaint are a matter of record. 6. That the contents of para no.6 of the complaint are wrong and denied. The possession of the plot is to be received by the true and rightful owner. Unless the dispute regarding the ownership of the plot is decided by the Honle Court the opposite party cannot hand over the possession to either of the parties to the suit 17. There is no specific denial to the above averments made by the complainant; hat possession was to be handed over to the allotee within 90 days of issue of allotment provided 25% of the saleable price has been paid 18. The respondent had admittedly paid the amount due within the specified period but still he was not handed over possession of the plot within the specified period. Thus deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is writ large in this case. 19. The entire case of the Petitioner/Authority is based on the premises that since the civil suit was pending between the parties and as such possession could not be delivered to the respondent. During the course of arguments, learned counsel has stated that possession of the plot in question has been handed over to the respondent on 4.6.2008 in compliance to the order dated 12.2.2008 passed by the District Forum. 20. We fail to understand as to why all of a sudden the petitioner handed over the possession of the plot in question to the respondent on 4.6.2008 after delaying the same for about 3 years when the civil suit was still pending. This act of petitioner goes on to show, that petitioner itself was at fault. Under these circumstances, the State Commission has rightly passed the impugned order. 21. Under section 21 (b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 22. Honle Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; lso, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different(and in our opinion, an erroneous)interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora 23. In view of the concurrent findings of facts given by both the Fora below, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the state Commission. Hence, present revision petition has no legal force and the same is hereby dismissed. 24. No order as to costs.