This Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra vide which the Appeal preferred against the original judgment and Order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Thane was dismissed. The Respondent/Opposite Party in the District Forum had been directed to accept the balance sum of Rs.13,02,842/- from the Complainant and handover the possession of the disputed flat for which he had made the initial payment, and had represented before the District Forum that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sum while the Opposite Party was avoiding and continuing to indulge in deficiency in service by not delivering possession of the flat. -2- The impugned Order of the State Commission is Ex-Facie, a very short one, running into just four paragraphs and does not go into any detailed reasoning for affirming the original Order of the District Forum, as can be seen from its concluding two paras. In the first para, only the decision of the operative part of the decision of the District Forum has been narrated. Facts of the case have been narrated in para No.2 of the impugned Order, and the Complainant’s willingness as the Respondent in the Appeal before the State Commission to pay the balance sum has been recorded in Para 3. The last paragraph, thereafter, which actually purports to record the reasons for the final decision is as follows : “We find that the learned Forum below had directed the respondent/complainant to pay the balance sum of Rs.13,02,842/- which shall be deposited with the learned Forum below so that opponent can execute an agreement for sale and to deliver possession of the flat mentioned above. That being so, we order the complainant/respondent to deposit sum of Rs.13,02,842/-2 with the learned Forum below who shall pass further order regarding execution of the agreement for sale as also deliver vacant and peaceful possession of flat in favour of complainant in respect of the flat which was booked. Amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- as also litigation costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- shall also be paid alongwith interest as directed by the learned Forum below, by the opponent to the complainant. We quantify amount of costs of this appeal in the sum of Rs.5,000/- shall also be paid to the respondent/complainant. We dispose of this appeal accordingly.” Grievance raised on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Ld. Fora below have not cared to go through the material cited from their side. This submission and reasoning would appear to be rather a fallacious one, and uncalled for, because it is a matter of record that the judgment and order of the Ld. District -3- Forum were delivered ex-parte as no contest had been raised from the side of the present Petitioner/Respondent in the said Forum. Consequently, the Ld. Appellate Forum also did not have much scope to look into those contentions which were in the first place not even put-forth in the trial Forum. No grounds have been made out either in the present Revision Petition or in the memorandum of Appeal filed in the Ld. State Commission to explain why initially appearing once, the Petitioner as O.P. in the complaint, did not file any written version nor took any steps whatsoever when the matter was proceeded against ex-parte. Consequently, this Commission also has no scope to interfere with the decisions of both the Ld. Fora below, since any points on factual merits or otherwise were never pleaded or put-forth before the original Forum to raise any contentious issues. The Revision Petition thus stands dismissed with no orders as to cost. | 
