Limited Notice was issued to the respondent on the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the ultimate order passed by the State Commission is at variance with the reasoning given in the body of the order, which requires clarification.  Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent to come and meet the litigation expenses.  Counsel for the petitioner states that he instructed his client to pay the sum of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent but he is not sure whether the same has been paid or not.  Be that as it may, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner today, we find that no clarification is required.  House was sold to the respondent initially on 12.10.1976.  At that time, price of the house was Rs.80,050/-, which was refixed at Rs.1,85,787/-. The petitioner, at one point of time, had asked the respondent to deposit the sum of Rs.49,575/- and thereafter a sum of Rs.40,000/-, which was deposited.  Thereafter, the petitioner again revised the price to Rs.2,86,435/-.  Possession of the house has already been given to the respondent.

District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to charge the original price, aggrieved against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay the revised price of Rs.2,86,435/- with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  The order is in favour of the petitioner.  The petitioner’s interests are fully protected.  No clarification is required.  Dismissed.