PER MR.JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMEBR Delay condoned. Costs of Rs.2500/- have been paid to Respondent Advocate. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, the revisions were finally heard at the admission stage. The Counsel for the Petitioner had restricted the revision only in respect of rate of interest. Accordingly, limited notice had been sent. We may at this stage point out that the Petitioner Society had even filed writ petition before Honle High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore [M/s. Ramakrishna House Building Cooperative Society (South) Ltd. and others vs. M.V. Krishna [Writ Petition No.8916 of 2010 (GM-CON)] challenging the District Forum order dated 20.8.2009, confirmed by State Commission, Bangalore on 9.2.2010, awarding 18% p.a. interest on refund of amount paid by Respondent therein. The writ petition was dismissed. The same orders which were challenged in writ petition are subject matter of challenge in these revisions. Heard Counsel appearing on both sides. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has brought to our notice the order passed by this Commission on 17.5.2010 in M/s. Ramakrishna House Building Cooperative Society (South) Ltd. and others vs. Shantha and others R.P. No. 1469-1470 of 2010 in identical matter filed by M/s. Ramakrishna House Building Cooperative Society (South) Ltd. and others. In that case, this Commission noticed that even after 4 years had elapsed, the Counsel for the Petitioner was not in a position to say as to how much time it will take to develop the site. It was also noticed that the assurance was given to the Respondents that the site shall be allotted within six months, but nothing was done. In view of this, the Commission had held that the Fora below had rightly directed the Petitioner to refund the deposited amount alongwith 18% interest p.a. and the revision was dismissed. In fact, this order should have been brought to the notice of this Bench when the matters were taken up. It appears that there is no change in what was noticed on 17.5.2010 and the Counsel for the parties state that the position is same as on today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the award @ 18% p.a. awarded by the fora below is in any manner excessive or unjustified so as to interfere with the same in revision, inasmuch as the site promised to the Respondents/Complainants was not only not handed over to them, but there does not appear to be any development at the site for handing over of the same though considerable period has already elapsed. In view of the above, the revision petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The Respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Petitioner with the State Commission and District Forum in accordance with orders passed by fora below.