Heard counsel for petitioner at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that the agreed sale consideration as per agreement of sale dated 7.5.2004 was Rs.5,49,000/- but the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- which was returned by the petitioner to the complainant vide cheque dated 18.07.2006. However, the complainant retained the said cheque for 10 months and encashed the said amount and returned Rs.3,52,000/- by cheque to the petitioner. This cheque was encahsed by the present petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant has yet to pay the difference amounting to Rs.1,97,000/- (agreed sale consideration of Rs.5,49,000/- minus Rs.3,52,000/- paid by the complainant). It is further contended by him that the stand taken by the complainant that the entire payment has been paid is not correct since some of the cheques issued by him had bounced. It is further contended that the petitioner had issued three cheques to the complainant, namely, for Rs.3,52,000/- which was encashed by him, cheque for Rs.88,000/- and cheque for Rs.90,000/- which were not encahsed by him. The said cheques, according to the counsel for the petitioner were issued taking into consideration the market value of the house in question. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions of the State Commission to execute the sale deed are required to be interfered with. Admittedly, the possession of the flat in question was given to the complainant and she is in possession of the same. In paragraph 2 of the complaint, the complainant had given details of payment of total consideration of Rs.5.5 lakhs. In reply to the same, the present petitioner had stated that some of the cheques issued by the complainant had been dishonoured. No details of cheuqes which had been dishonoured and when were disclosed by the opposite party. In fact, the State Commission in the impugned order has recorded that there is no evidence on record to show that any of the cheques that were given by the complainant had bounced and it is not known why OP has failed to produce any evidence of it. The State Commission found that Rs.5,50,000/- had been paid by the complainant. The case put forwarded by the present petitioner is that he had issued three chques for Rs.3,52,000/-, Rs.90,000/- and Rs.88,000/- to the complainant towards refund of the amount paid by him. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said cheques had been issued taking into consideration the present market value does not get any support from the written statement filed by the opposite party nor can it be believed that a builder would return more money than that he received for consideration of the property. Admittedly, the complainant had returned a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- to the present petitioner who encashed the same. It is also an admitted position, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, that the cheques for Rs.90,000/- and Rs.88,000/- were not enchased by the petitioner which means that the said amount has also not been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.5,30,000/- even as per the case of the present petitioner. In this set of facts, the State Commission had ordered the present petitioner to execute the sale deed. Since the complainant is already in possession of the property in question, in my opinion, the order of the State Commission is just, fair and equitable and does not call for any interference whatsoever in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.