Today the matter is listed for disposal of application of the respondent for review of ex parte order dated 12.12.2012 staying execution of the order of the District Forum.

 The order of the District Forum reads as follows:

“Consequently, the complaint succeeds and the Ops are directed to deliver physical possession of the Flat to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. on the amounts deposited by her to the OP from the date of each deposit till the delivery of physical possession.  The complainant is also directed to pay the balance amount, if any, at the time of taking physical possession of the Flat.

            The complainant has been harassed and caused mental agony, thus, she is entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.  Compliance of the order be made within 30 days.”

2.         After going through the record, we are of the view that revision petition itself can be disposed of today.  Learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that arguments on revision petition cannot be heard because it is not listed for that purpose.  We then offered to adjourn the case for few days.  Counsel for the petitioner then agreed to argue on revision petition. 

3.         This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 08.11.2012 which reads thus:

          “Present :       Mr. Ashwani Talwar Adv. for the appellant.

          Notice be issued to the respondent for 14.12.2012. However, appellant is at liberty to collect the notice and get the respondent served dasti, if so desire.

          Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has contended that the appellants-opposite parties are willing to give the possession of the flat to the complainant as ordered by the District Consumer Forum but due to the amount claimed by the complainant as well as by the appellants the same requires to be settled and thus, learned counsel prayed for the stay of impugned order. We have asked the counsel to get the opposite party served for the date fixed so that the matter could be resolved finally, instead of staying the impugned order”.

4.         On reading of the above, it is clear that State Commission without passing any adverse order against the petitioner – appellant directed issue of notice to the appellant for 14.12.2012.  This implied that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration of the State Commission.  Grievance of the petitioner is that alongwith the appeal, an application for stay of the impugned order was filed but the State Commission has failed to decide the said application and this amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the State Commission, as such, order dated 8.11.2012 is not sustainable. It is further contended that State Commission ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and granted ex parte stay against execution for the reason that one of the plea raised before the State Commission was that impugned order of the District Forum was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.

5.         Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in favour of the impugned order and submitted that there is nothing wrong on the part of the State Commission to issue notice to the respondent before passing any order on stay application.

6.         We have considered the rival submissions. On reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the State Commission after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant deemed it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent instead of granting ex parte stay of the impugned order.  No adverse finding has been returned against the petitioner.  The revision petition is, therefore, pre mature because the State Commission is yet to decide stay application after hearing the parties. Revision petition is therefore dismissed. 

7.         We have been informed that next date of  hearing before the State Commission is 21.05.2013.  Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on the date fixed and the State Commission is requested to decide the stay application on the same date.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has already filed execution petition and requests for stay of the execution.  It may be noted that on 08.11.2012, the petitioner had offered before the State Commission to hand over possession of the flat in question to the respondent.  Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, execution of the order of District Forum is stayed till the disposal of the stay application by the State Commission subject to the petitioner handing over possession of the flat in question to the respondent.  Revision petition is accordingly dismissed and the interim stay order stands vacated.   Review petition filed by the respondent is also disposed of accordingly.