JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. There is delay of 12 days in filing this revision petition. For the reasons detailed in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is hereby condoned. 2. Sh. Vimal Chand Jain, the complainant got registration of the house in the year 1989 in the isabled category, with the petitioner/opposite party. He paid Rs.2,000/- + Rs.3,500/- on 21.08.1989 and 03.03.1993, respectively. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 24.08.1998 that the allotment of the house would be made in Sanganer Scheme in place of Mansarovar Scheme and he was asked to give his option for Hire Purchase System or Cash Purchase System. The complainant was asked to deposit the remaining instalments. The complainant wrote letter to the petitioner stating that if it is not possible to allot the house in Mansarovar Scheme, then the same may be allotted in Sanganer and earlier option of hire purchase system be maintained. He explained that opposite party may issue notice so that the remaining instalments could be deposited. However, as the opposite party failed to allot the house, the complainant filed a complaint before the District forum. The District Forum vide order dated 03.06.2006, held, as under :- 9. Thus the dispute of the complainant against opposite parties Rajasthan Housing Board is admitted and the opposite parties Rajasthan Housing Board is directed to include the name of the complainant in the lottery to be drawn in Sanganer Scheme giving effect to this order and when the name of the complainant is found in the lottery draw, then 9 percent interest on the deposited amount Rs.2,000/- + Rs.3,500/- = Rs.5,500/- from the date of deposit to the date of allotment shall be adjusted with the total amount to be deposited and the complainant has to deposit the balance amount and the opposite parties shall pay Rs.2,000/- against the disputed cost (in words Rupees two thousand ) to the complainant 3. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.12.2009. The petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the order of the State Commission, dated 21.12.2009. There is no inkling in the written synopsis that revision petition was also filed before this Commission, the written synopsis are conspicuously silent about the same. The order passed by the District Forum dated 03.06.2006 has attained finality. This does not behove on the part of the petitioner to attack that judgment. It is clear that the petitioner has been boarding the contempt of court proceedings. In further proceedings, the petitioner has no authority to challenge that order. 4. Thereafter the complainant filed contempt petition before the Executing Court for non-compliance of the said order. The District Forum disposed of the contempt petition on the ground that since the petitioner-Board had already produced the papers for allotment of plot, therefore, the contempt application was not maintainable. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 10.06.2013, held as under :- e heard the arguments of both parties. The complainant got registration of the house in 1989 and the complainant in disabled category in the application. Allotment of house against the flat has been made in favour of the complainant. The complainant filed an allotment letter No.3408 dated 18.10.2000 of another applicant named Sudhir Kumar Jain and we perused it. The aforesaid allotment letter is also of General Registration Scheme 1989 and its seniority has been shown at serial number 21 in the allotment letter. The defendant also got his registration in 1989 in LIG category. The total value of the house has been shown Rs.1,97,746/- in the allotment letter and the area of the house is 60 square meter, whereas the allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 04.12.2009, against which the complainant filed objection. The said house is of LIG Category in the aforesaid allotment letter and its standard area is 21.38 square meter, and the value of the house is Rs.2,90,065/-. As both the registrations were made in 1989 and the District Forum also passed this order that the allotment letter at the then rates be issued to the applicant. But after perusal of aforesaid both allotment letters, it is lucid clear that the allotment letter for lower income group house at the then rates has not been issued to the applicant, therefore, the appeal of the complainant/appellant is liable to be admitted. In the result, the appeal of the complainant is admitted and the order dated 21.12.2009 passed in the contempt proceeding by District Consumer Forum is set aside, and opposite party, Board is ordered to allot independent LIG house at the then rate having the area of 60 square meter and value Rs.1,97,746/-. This amount of Rs.1,97,746/- be recovered without charging any interest from the defendant. Cost of the appeal Rs.5,000/- be also paid to the appellant. 45 daystime is given to the opposite party for the compliance of the order 5. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner has not placed on record, the order of contempt of court passed by the District Forum. 6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the original order passed by the District Forum, dated 03.06.2006 suffers from various infirmities. He started counting the same before this Commission. He was informed that the order has attained finality and cannot be challenged in these proceedings. He could limit his arguments on the contempt application only. It is surprising to note that all the record was not produced before this Commission. It was expected that the Commission will adjourn the matter unnecessarily, for the production of the documents and the prayer was also made, which was not accepted. An adjournment would mean pursuing the case for another year whereas this dispute has origin since the year 1989, Justice delayed is not only Justice denied- it is also Justice circumvented, Justice mocked and the system of Justice undermined. These are the welfare policies floated by the Rajasthan Housing Board. More than 25 years have elapsed but the poor complainant has not received the plot. This is how the Rajasthan Housing Board deals with a person belonging to isabledcategory. 7. The State Commission has dismissed the original cross appeals filed by both the parties, vide its order dated 06.08.2008. It is well settled that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The order passed by the District Forum, dated 03.06.2006, has become final. Consequently, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. It is in tune with the previous orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission. The Revision Petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 8. The petitioner is further given opportunity to comply with the order of the State Commission, within 120 days, from the date of receipt of this order. The possession of plot he given to him within 120 days. Fresh notice be given to the complainant by the petitioner to pay the residue amount, after deducting the amount paid by him, the total amount, being Rs.1,97,746/, without interest, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The cost of the appeal in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, as ordered by the State Commission shall remain intact. The said costs be paid to the complainant by the petitioner. If the needful is not done, within 120 days, the petitioner/OP will be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the complainant, as penalty, till the plot is handed over to him.