Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In complaint nos. DF/ MSD/1222 and 1223 of 1999, the District Forum, Mumbai, Suburban District passed on 23rd July, 2003 the following operative order: 1. The OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants in case No. 1222 of 1999 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization. 2. The OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainants in case No. 1223 of 1999 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 3rd October, 1986 till realization. 3. The OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants in Case No. 1222 of 1999 as compensation. 4. The OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants in case No. 1223 of 1999 as compensation. 5. The OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainants in case No. 1222 of 1999 as costs of this litigation. 6. The OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to complainants in case No. 1223 of 1999 as costs of this litigation. 7. The OPs are to comply with the aforesaid order within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. If the OPs fail to comply with the order at sr. no. (3) to (6) above within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, they have to pay interest on the amount of compensation and costs i.e. Rs.55,000/- in each case at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decision i.e. 23rd July, 2003 till realization.” Appeal and revision petition were not filed against the same and thus that order became final. However, after a lapse of nearly six months, the complainants (petitioners here) filed Miscellaneous Application for rectification of the District Forum’s order, on the ground that now they had been able to locate the receipts given to them for the payments made to the builder in cash. The District Forum, after considering the legal position and facts, arrived at the conclusion that no such application for rectification, review or recalling of its earlier order was maintainable. That order was passed on 28th June, 2005. Against that order, the petitioner preferred, Appeal nos. 1531 and 1532 of 2005 before the State Commission, Maharashtra. The State Commission dismissed the said appeals by order dated 1st February, 2006. Against those orders, these revision petitions are filed. In our view, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission cannot be said to be in any way erroneous or illegal. Secondly, it is difficult to believe that the petitioners having paid unaccounted money (cash) to the opposite parties, could locate the receipts after the lapse of more than four years from the date of filing of the complaint. Hence, these revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER | | 
