PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.08.2013 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 424/2013 Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. M/s. Mera Baba Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and matter was remanded. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner booked a plot with OP/respondent by depositing 20% of the price of the plot vide receipt dated 31.3.2006. OP booked the aforesaid plot without obtaining any licence from Director Town and Country Planning, but later on it was issued to the OP on 3.12.2007. Possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant within 12 months from the date of booking. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP in not giving possession of plot complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant failed to make payment of balance instalments despite repeated requests and reminders; so, possession of plot could not be delivered to him and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint being barred by limitation, as plot was booked on 31.3.2006 and complaint was filed after 6-7 years. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order treating complaint in limitation allowed appeal and remanded the matter for deciding complaint on merits against which, this revision petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission ought to have decided appeal on merits also and has committed error in remanding the complaint; hence, revision petition be admitted and impugned order be set aside and State Commission be directed to decide appeal on merits. 6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that learned District Forum dismissed complaint as barred by limitation whereas learned State Commission in appeal treated complaint within limitation and remanded the matter to District Forum for deciding complaint on merits. 7. As District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation, learned State Commission was right in remanding the matter to District Forum for decision on merits after treating the complaint within limitation. State Commission could not have decided appeal on merits as District Forum has not dealt the complaint on merits. We do not find any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in order of remand passed by learned State Commission and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. We are not deciding legality of order of learned State Commission treating complaint in limitation. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.