ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION IN EFFECT AND SUBSTANTIALLY REJECTING THE REVISION APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM IN EXECUTION OF AN EARLIER ORDER.

3. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATES TO THE ALLOTMENT OF A FLAT BY THE APPELLANT TO THE RESPONDENT. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE POSSESSION COULD NOT BE GIVEN BECAUSE IT WAS PROHIBITED BY AN INJUNCTION ORDER FROM MAKING ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND IN QUESTION IN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE OWNERS OF THE LAND. IT IS STATED THAT AFTER THE INJUNCTION ORDER WAS VACATED THE CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE AND ALLOTMENT MADE TO THE RESPONDENT. IT IS THE APPELLANTS FURTHER CASE THAT BY THE TIME SUCH ALLOTMENT COULD BE MADE THE PRICE OF THE FLAT HAD INCREASED. ACCORDINGLY, A DEMAND WAS RAISED ON THE RESPONDENT BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT IN THE PRICE. THE RESPONDENT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE FLAT BUT FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 ALLEGING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE INCREASED COST, THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST TO