Navin Chandra Sharma, President - Initially Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer had filed Appeal No: 336/94 against the order of the pistrict Form, Ajmer dt: 18-1-94 passed on application under S. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant before that Forum, but later on upon the request of the counsel for the Trust made on 14.7.94, Appeal No: 336/94 was treated as revision and registered as Revision No: 64/94. Argument of the learned counsels for the parties were heard. It is clear that Complaint Case No: 587/90 filed by the complainant-respondent, the District Forum by its order dt: 22.10.90 had passed an order under S. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the Urban Improvement Trust to refund the amounts of Rs. 87,583/- and Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within two months of the date of the order. It was further mentioned in the order that the complainant will be entitled to interest on the said amount at 12% p.a. The Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer did not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dtd. 22.10.90, and consequently that order has attained finality. The present revision petition has been filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer against the order passed by the District Forum on 18.1.94 on an application under S. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and not even against the main order passed on the complaint on 22.10.90.

2. It may further be stated that both the sides admit that the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer had already paid the amounts of Rs. 87,583/- and Rs. 10,000/- which had been ordered to be paid to the complainant by the District Forum, Ajmer by its order dtd. 22.10.90. The only controversy between the parties is with regard to the interest

3. In the application under Sec. 27 of the. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the controversy raised was that according to the complainant, interest was payable to him from 20.5.87 i.e. from the gate the security amounts have become refundable to the complainant. While according to the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer, as per the order of the District Forum the amounts of security deposits were to be refunded within two months and according to the order dtd. 22.10.90 interest at 12% per annum was not payable on the amounts only if they were not refunded within two months of the date of the order of the District Forum. The District Forum, Ajmer by its order dtd. 18.1.94 held that the order regarding payment of interest at 12% p.a. made in the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dtd. 22.10.90 will be in order directing to the interest on the amounts of the security deposit from 20.5.87 to 20.12.90.

4. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer has urged that after the District Forum, Ajmer had decided the complaint on 22.10.90, it had no power to alter or vary the order relating to payment of interest. It was urged that the District Forum, Ajmer could not go behind its order dtd. 22.10.90.

5. I am of the opinion that the District Forum. Ajmer by its order dtd. 18.1.94hns neither varied nor altered its order dtd. 22.10.90 and has also not gone behind the order. A court or Forum when it passes an order has jurisdiction to interpret its order. 'The District Forum, Ajrner by its order dtd. 18.1.94 had interpreted the order dtd. 22.10.90 passed in Complaint Case and had not gone behind the order. Thus it cannot be said that the District Forum has exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in it by law.

6. 'The revision petition has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed.

Appeal treated as Revision dismissed.