PER JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. Smt. Roshni Devi, the complainant had filed the present complaint against M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. During the pendency of the case before the District Forum, an agreement was reached between the counsel and the parties and the counsel for the complainant had made a statement that he had no objection to accept the allotment of flat at any available place and on the revised rate as well. The complainant was disposed of accordingly. 2. Aggrieved by that order, appeal was preferred before the State Commission by Roshni Devi. She alleged that he had never requested his counsel to make such statement. She further prayed that her case should be decided on merits. The main grouse of the complainant was that Roshni Devi had paid Rs. 3,00,000/- vide cheque dated 20.02.2006 and Sh. N.K.Jain, brother of Roshni Devi also made another payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide cheque of the same date, i.e., 20.02.2006, regarding residential flat of 1000-1100 sq.ft. Her main grouse is that the flat should be allotted to her as per the rate prevailing in the year 2006. 3. It is apparent from the order of District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is favorable to the OP and detrimental to the complainant. The entire plea taken by the OP stood complied with. It is difficult to fathom, “What does the complainant get from this order?”. She is certainly a looser. She could have got such relief without filing this complaint. The conduct of her Advocate is Bizarre. It appears that due to mis-communication, the said statement was made by the learned Advocate. The Bar Council is also ceased of this matter, but it is now stated that the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the complaint. Counsel for the complainant submits that they will file an appeal before the Bar Council of India. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the foras below and direct the District Forum to decide the case on merits. He should also take care of the fact that when such statement is made by the Advocate, he should be asked to produce the party and record the same. It would be better to have written agreement signed by the parties. We smell a rat in this situation and have passed this order to save the interests of the parties. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 01.05.2013. Nothing in this order will tantamount to expression of any opinion regarding the merits of this case. 6. The revision petition stands disposed of. 7. Copy of order be given Dasti to all the counsel for the parties. | 
