Heard. 2. By this common order, above noted revision petitions are being disposed of, as facts of these cases are similar and common question of law is involved. 3. Mrs.Sangita Sharma, Complainant/Petitioner filed (Complaint No.839 of 2006) in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (short, istrict Forum) against the Respondents/ Opposite Parties. 4. The complaint was contested by the respondents. 5. District Forum-II vide order dated 2.7.2007 passed the following directions ; . The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,004/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant from the date of deposit till realization. 2. The complainant is also held entitled to costs of litigation which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-. 6. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (short, tate Commission praying for allotment of housing unit. Vide impugned order dated 9.8.2007, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner Sangita Sharma. 7. Being aggrieved, Mrs.Sangita Sharma has filed (Revision Petition No.3556 of 2007) before this Commission. 8. On the other hand, Shri R.K.Sharma, husband of Mrs.Sangita Sharma also filed a Consumer Complaint (No.539 of 2006) before the District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh in which following directions were passed by the District Forum on 19.9.2007 ; he complaint of respondent (complainant) was accepted with cost of Rs.2,100/- and the appellants (opposite parties) were directed to refund Rs.1 lakh as deposited by the respondent and further Rs.5 lakhs as compensation within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which they were to pay penal interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till payment. 9. Being aggrieved, Respondents/Opposite Parties M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order dated 14.7.2008, dismissed the same. 10. Now M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit has filed (Revision Petition No.3524 of 2007) before this Commission. 11. Learned counsel for both parties agree that these matters are to be remanded back to the State Commission in view of the fact that different reliefs have been granted to the complainants though facts of both the complaints are similar. 12. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the State Commission in the above petitions and remand the matter back to the State Commission to consider the same afresh, in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 13. The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeals, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of this order. 14. Present revisions stand disposed of accordingly. 15. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.5.2014. 16. Dasti to both parties.