JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 04.02.10 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission) in appeal no. 322/10. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order passed by the District Forum in execution case no. 41/08 by which the District Forum has directed the present petitioner, manufacturer of the tractors, to replace the faulty tractor with a new tractor of the same model. 2. Notice on the petition was issued to the respondent but no one appeared to represent the respondent in the present proceedings despite due service. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner made a statement on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is still ready and willing to carry out the necessary repairs in the tractor in question within the shortest possible period and pursuant to that statement, this Commission has given liberty to the respondent/complainant to get the tractor repaired to his satisfaction from the petitioner and respondent no.2. Mr. Rahul Malhotra, counsel ..3.. for the petitioner states that the respondent has not approached the petitioner or respondent no.2 for doing the needful. But he states that despite this the petitioner is still ready to comply with the original order passed by the District Forum in regard to the repairing of the tractor in question. 3. This case presents a somewhat disturbing situation inasmuch as the District Forum without exhausting the first direction of the order passed by it in the original complaint while considering the question of compliance of the said order in the execution proceedings has directed the replacement of the tractor. The District Forum and for that reason the State Commission would have done well to realize first direction of the order passed by it in the first instance. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum by which the Petitioner has been directed to replace the tractor in question by a new tractor. However, since the original order passed by the District Forum has become final and still remains unrealized on the ground, we remit the matter to the concerned District Forum for ensuring the compliance of the first direction of its own order in accordance with provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..4.. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 02.08.10 for receiving further direction in the matter. The respondent No.1/complainant shall produce the tractor in question before the District Forum on that date and the District Forum shall fix a time frame for repairing of the tractor by the petitioner and make further directions as may be considered necessary in order to realize the original order passed by it. The undertaking given by the petitioner before this Commission shall hold good till the disposal of the execution petition by the District Forum.