Ashok Bhan, President—Complainant/respondent was allotted industrial plot No.12A measuring 540 square meters located in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula at the rate of Rs.484 per square meter vide Memo No.8550 dated 27.4.1993. Respondent deposited 25% of the cost of the plot, i.e., Rs.41,140 vide receipt No. 1997 dated 4.6.1993. As the complainant failed to deposit 75% of the total cost of the plot as per notice served, the Estate Office, Haryana Development Authority (for short HUDA) Opposite Part No.1 cancelled the said plot vide Memo No.811 dated 20.1.1995. Complainant, thereafter, filed the appeal before the Administrator, HUDA opposite party No.2 which was accepted and the cancelled plot was restored to the complainant subject to the payment of current price, i.e., @ Rs. 700 per square meter. Complainant, accordingly, deposited Rs.3,12,660 vide receipt No.3574 dated 3.1.1996 as desired by the opposite party No.1 vide Memo No.1104 dated 16.01.1996 towards the full and final payment of the plot. Thereafter, complainant approached the Opposite Parties for issuance of allotment letter which was issued vide letter No. EO (P) 20059 dated 4.11.1997 but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot in spite of several written requests. Being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2. On being served, opposite parties filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint.

3. District Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings as well as the evidence led by parties, allowed the complaint and gave following directions:

“(a) To offer physical possession of the plot No. 12A/Industrial Area, phase-I, Panchkula immediately or if it is not possible, then to allot an alternative plot on the same price of the original plot and of same size and in the same sector.

(b) Also to pay interest compensation @ 15% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant before 27.4.1993 w.e.f. 27.4.93 till offer of possession as per clause (a) above and on the amount deposited after 27.4.1993 w.e.f. the date of deposit till offer of possession as per clause (a) above.

(c) And also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 as costs of proceedings.”

Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, .Panchkula (for short ‘the State Commission’) .The State Commission, by the impugned order, modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to offer physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant immediately, or. if it is not possible, then, to allot an alternative plot at a price of Rs.700 per square meter as had been ordered by the Administrator, Huda in appeal and of same size and in the same sector. The rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 12% p.a. It was also observed that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that any dispute was pending either in the Court of Rajpura or Panchkula or in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. That no documents had been placed on record in respect of the stand taken that the possession of the plot could not be given because of the litigation pending in the Courts of Rajpura, Panchkula or the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

6. Petitioner has filed an application for permission to take new pleas as well as for producing additional evidence. Pleas now being raised as well as the evidence the petitioner seeks to produce was in the knowledge of the petitioner during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum as well as the appeal before the State Commission. No reasons, whatsoever, have been given in the application as to why pleas now sought to be taken and the evidence produced was not taken/produced before th