PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. The Complainant/Petitioner had purchased a house from the Respondent (Opposite Party ). According to the Complainant he had paid excess amount of Rs.36,120/- towards the said house and sought refund thereof with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The Opposite Party, in reply, had submitted that the Complainant was in arrears of Rs.95,585/-. The District Forum directed the Opposite Party to refund excess amount of Rs.80,701/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till its payment as also compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and cost of Rs.1000/-. The Opposite Party was also directed to execute registered sale deed of the disputed house in favour of the Complainant. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party before the State Commission by filing appeal. The order dated 28.1.2009 passed in appeal by the State Commission states that eventually the matter was compromised and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was accepted in full and final settlement of debt. We had asked the learned counsel for the Petitioner to place the compromise on record and he informed that the compromise was oral. After the said compromise, the Petitioner filed execution proceedings and by order dated 18.2.2010 in the execution proceedings, directions were given to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.70,000/- to the Complainant as per order of the State Commission. This order was challenged by filing a revision petition before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2011 of the State Commission. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed in this Commission. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted before us that in the compromise, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. However, this submission of Counsel for the Petitioner is not supported by the judgement dated 28.1.2009 passed by the State Commission in first appeal wherein it is stated that eventually the matter was compromised and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was accepted in full and final settlement of debt. This appeal was decided by Mr. Justice S.K. Kulshrestha, President, Smt. Pramila S. Kumar, Member and Smt. Neerja Singh, Member. The revision arising out of execution proceedings from order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the District Forum was heard by the same Bench which had heard the appeal. In the order 3.2.2011 passed in revision, it has been once again reiterated that the parties had compromised the matter and the amount of Rs.78,076/- (not Rs.70,000 as mentioned in the impugned order) was accepted by Housing Board in full and final settlement of the case and Junior MIG Flat No.32 booked by the Complainant had been delivered to the Complainant. The State Commission has also recorded the fact that the Complainant did not dispute that the compromise was in the sum of Rs.78,076/- and not Rs.70,000/-. Thus, contention which is put forward by Counsel for the Petitioner before us has been rejected by the same Bench in its order dated 3.2.2011 wherein it is reiterated that the compromise was to the effect that amount of Rs.78,076/- had been accepted by the Housing Board in full and final settlement of the case and Junior MIG Flat No.32 booked by the Complainant was delivered to the Complainant. In view of this, the submission made by Counsel for the Petitioner that the said amount was actually payable by the Housing Board to the Complainant cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission had very rightly quashed the execution proceedings and the Complainant was directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the MP Housing Board in addition to refund of money obtained in the execution. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.