The central legal point established is the requirement for a liberal approach in advancing substantial cause of justice and the limitation for appeal under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President—Challenge in this appeal filed by the appellants Lok Ram and Chajju Ram is in respect of order dated 6.1.2005 and the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by District Forum, Hisar whereby Complaint Case No. 186 of 2002 filed by the appellants was dismissed and Misc. Application No. 2 of 2005 for review of the order dated 6.1.2005 was also dismissed.

2. The facts as spelled out from the record are that Lok Ram-complainant had purchased plot No. 28 measuring 20' x 75' located in Mandi Balsamand, Tehsil and District Hisar in an open auction on 1.9.1982 for a sum of Rs. 48,000. He had paid Rs. 12,000 as 25% of sale price of this plot vide receipt No. 170/67738 dated 1.9.1982 to Market Committee, Hisar. A formal letter of allotment dated 23.2.1983 was also issued to him by the Market Committee. Remaining 75% of the sale price was to be deposited in three equal instalments of Rs. 12,000 along with interest due on 1.4.1983, 1.10.1983 and 1.4.1984. At the time of auction, the complainant was informed that working of Grain Market will commence within a period of six months. After taking possession of the plot, the complainant constructed a shop thereon in the month of March, 1983. However, the opposite party did not start development work as promised which compelled the complainant to sold the plot to Chajju Ram on 14.7.1983 vide agreement to sell dated 9.8.1983 and a GPA No. 306 dated 14.7.1983. An application along with affidavits was submitted in the office of Market Committee, Hisar on 17.7.1983 for transfer of the plot in favour of Chajju Ram-complainant No. 2. Both the complainants requested the opposite party to complete development work but as it was not completed, complainant No. 2 did not pay balance instalments he had been ready and willing to pay the same subject to completion of development work. On 4.4.2002 the complainant No. 2 come to know that plot in question has been resumed by the opposite party on 10.5.2001 on account of non-payment of balance price of the plot. It is thereafter, the complainants filed the present complaint seeking direction to set aside the resumption order dated 10.5.2001 passed by opposite party No. 2, to transfer the plot in question in favour of complainant No. 2 on the basis of application for transfer already submitted. The complainants also claimed interest on the deposited amount @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till completion of development work and compensation of Rs. four lacs on account of loss suffered by them. They also sought direction against the opposite party not to charge interest on the balance amount till the completion of the development work and further claimed Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation. It was also averred by the complainant No. 1 that he has incurred expenses of Rs. 5 lacs by raising construction of his shop.

3. The opposite parties in their written statement did not dispute the allotment of the plot made to complainant No. 1 as per terms stated in the complaint, but at the same time, maintained that the complainant failed to deposit the remaining sale price in three equal instalments of Rs. 12,000 on the due dates along with interest and thus committed breach of terms of auction. It was further pleaded that the payment of instalments made, is not co-related with the development work as asserted in the complaint. Action of the complainant-Lok Ram in selling the shop to Chajju Ram without depositing the balance sale price was termed as violation and for that reason the application of complainant No. 2 could not be considered being in violation of condition No. 12 of the allotment letter issued to complainant No. 1. It was further pleaded by them that the complainant has no legal right to carry out any construction on the plot in question.

4. After appraisal of the pleadings and documents produced on the record by the parties, the District Forum found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the