The impugned order was passed by the State Commission on 13.10.2017. On 24.05.2018, a joint application was submitted before the State Commission which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: “That this Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to pass the order whereby the Bank A/cs of the JD were directed to be attached, vide today’s order. That the parties, however have arrived at a mutual settlement, whereby it has been agreed that JD will make the payment of decreetal amount to the extent of refund with 18% interest by 11.07.2018. Out of which Rs.5,00,000/- is being paid today, and Rs.23,06,440/- have already been paid. This is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to contest the appeal on merits which is listed for hearing before Hon’ble National Commission on 06.08.2018. It is therefore, jointly prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to adjourn the said matter to give other date after 11.07.2018 and recall today’s order. It is therefore prayed accordingly.” According to the learned counsel for the parties, no order was passed by the State Commission on the aforesaid application though it had been filed on 24.05.2018 itself. The parties entered into another settlement on the very next day i.e. 25.05.2018. The said settlement, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: “This agreement is executed today i.e. 25th of May, 2015 between M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through their counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, having vakalatnama in his favour, hereinafter called J.D. AND Mr. Narender Kumar Dhameja S/o Sh. Teju Mal, R/o A-8/15-A, Flat No.103, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, hereinafter called DH. It has been agreed that the decreetal amount in the matter Narender Kumar Dhameja Vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Ex. No.12/2018, to the extent of refund with 18% shall be paid by the J.D. to D.H. by way of D.D. in two equal installments first on or before 11/6/18 and other on or before 11.07.18. In witness whereof both the parties have signed at the place Delhi and on the date as stated above.” On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two documents, it is evident that initially, the parties had agreed that the amount payable to the complainant in terms of the order of the State Commission, shall be paid by 11.07.18 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant in the present appeal, but later on, they entered into another settlement dated 25.05.18 where under the appellant agreed to pay the aforesaid amount in two equal installments, the first payable on or before 11.06.18 and the other payable on or before 11.07.18. In the settlement dated 25.05.18, there is no reference to the application submitted before the State Commission on 24.05.18. Nowhere it is stated in the settlement dated 25.05.18 that it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant in the appeal which it had already filed before this Commission. Thus, the agreement dated 25.05.18 was an unconditional settlement where under the appellant agreed to make payment in terms of the order passed by the State Commission in two installments, the first being payable on or before 11.06.18 and the other being payable on or before 11.07.18. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the appellant is estopped from continuing with this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount if any, deposited by the appellant with the State Commission pursuant to the order of this Commission, shall be released to the complainant alongwith interest if any, which may have accrued on that amount. | 
