Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 

2.     On a complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum for issuance of direction to the OP – Society to execute and register the sale deed of plot No. 213, measuring 500 sq.yds situtated in Friends Colony, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana or in the alternative to  execute and register the sale deed of another suitable plot of the same value and hand over possession thereof to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs on account of escalation in the cost of construction and Rs. 1.00 lac on account of mental agony and harassment, the District Forum vide its order dated 25.07.2008 allowed the complaint of the petitioner and gave substantial relief by its order.  However, when this order of the District Forum was taken to the State Commission by the OP – Society in appeal, the State Commission unsuited the petitioner and allowed the appeal of the OP – Society setting aside the order of the District Forum as well as dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant.  It is against this order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed before this Commission by the petitioner – Society. 

3.      The OP – Society would resist the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that the plot in question was cancelled and the complainant was expelled from the Society on 03.08.1995.  Cancellation of the plot was conveyed to him vide letter dated 18.09.1995.  The complainant did not challenge his expulsion by way of filing of appeal and hence his consumer complaint was not maintainable.  It is also contended that the complainant was a defaulter in making the payment of Rs. 20,000/- on account of developmental charges which he was required to pay up to 31.01.1993 but did not pay in spite of notice and reminders.  Having remained silent for over six years, the complainant made a representation on 09.11.2001 praying for restoration of the plot which was rejected by the OP – Society.  The complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was, therefore, time barred and hence not maintainable.    

4.     We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  In our considered opinion, the State Commission has unsuited the petitioner by its well reasoned order thereby setting aside the order of the District Forum.  It is obvious that the District Forum lost sight of the crucial facts and erroneously allowed the complaint which was time barred and hence should not have been entertained. We, therefore, do not find justification to interfere with this well reasoned order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition, therefore, stands  dismissed  at the threshold with no order as to cost.