This order shall dispose of both cross revision petitions as they arise out of the same impugned order. Complainant is an association of flat owners, constructed by OP-2 developer, on the land owned by the petitioner, which was OP-1 before the District Forum. Complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that the OPs had failed to provide the approach road and the borewell to the residents of the flats. District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. The order passed by the State Commission attained finality. As the order passed by the State Commission was not complied with, complainant filed Execution Petition before the District Forum, which vide order dated 7.7.2008, directed the opposite parties to comply with the orders passed by the fora below. Opposite parties No.1 and 2, being aggrieved, filed separate appeals before the State Commission, which by its impugned order dated 11.4.2010, dismissed the appeal with the following observations : -3- “In the result, all the appeals are dismissed with an observation that the District Forum may proceed for enforcement of the relief for providing a borewell in the premises of Pooja Apartments for enjoyment of amenity to all the occupants directing the appellants/OPs 1 and 2 to deposit a tentative amount of Rs.3,40,000/- each within 30 days and on such deposit the respondent/complainant to take steps to appoint a contractor for digging borewell with the amount deposited by OPs 1 and 2. The respondent/complainant shall produce estimates and bills as to the actual expenditure incurred and in case any excess amount is incurred it shall be paid by the appellant/OPs 1 & 2 equally. As regards the relief, to have free access at the gate it is for the respondent/complainant to take steps against the encroacher in a civil court. In the circumstances, each party to bear its own costs.” Being aggrieved, opposite party No.1, i.e., land owners have filed the Revision Petition No.2474/2010. Counsel for the petitioner on 10.8.2010 contended before us that the State Commission had erred in directing the petitioner as well as Respondent No.2 to deposit the tentative amount of Rs.3,40,000/- each for digging the borewell. According to the petitioner, the cost of digging the borewell was around Rs.2 lac. That he is prepared to get the borewell dug at a much lesser cost. Respondent No.2, in pursuance to the direction issued by the State Commission, has already deposited the sum of Rs.3,40,000/-. Case was adjourned for -4- today. Petitioner was permitted as well as directed to dig the borewell within three months and file the status report. Counsel for the petitioner states that it is not technically feasible to dig the borewell; that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as per directions issued by the State Commission within four weeks. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to deposit his share of money, the revision petition 2474/2010 is dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed four weeks to deposit Rs.3,40,000/- with the State Commission. Respondent no.2 has accepted the order passed by the State Commission and deposited the sum of Rs.3,40,000/-. As per directions issued by the State Commission, respondent/complainant in revision petition 2474/2010 is required to produce the estimates and bills as to the actual expenditure incurred and in case any excess amount is incurred it shall be refunded to the opposite parties in equal share. The State Commission shall pass appropriate orders regarding release of the money to the respondent/complainant. -5- Revision petition 726/2011 Delay condoned. In the complaint, petitioner was granted two fold reliefs. One regarding the digging of borewell and the other for providing access to the flats. In so far as digging of the borewell is concerned, opposite parties have been directed to deposit Rs.3,40,000/- each to enable the complainant to dig the borwell. So far as passage is concerned, the State Commission states that it cannot give a direction to execute the same in view of the stay granted by the civil court. Complainant has filed the revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission in refusing to get the order regarding passage executed. We agree with the State Commission that in view of the stay granted by the civil court a direction to execute the order cannot be given. However, complainant is put at liberty to move an application for vacation of stay before the civil court.
-6- Revision petition stands disposed of. | 
