The case has been called out for final hearing, but the Appellants remain unrepresented.

2. As per the office report, Respondents No.9 to 12 remain unserved but Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Advocate says that she would be appearing on behalf of Respondents No.10 to 12 as well. Respondent No.9 is stated to have passed away. However, having regard to the nature of the relief claimed in this Appeal, we feel that the impleadment of legal representatives of Respondent no.9 would be unnecessary for adjudication of the issue involved and hence deferment of hearing in the case would not serve any useful purpose.

3. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 8 and 10 to 12.

4. The short grievance of the Appellants in this Appeal is that having come to the conclusion that the cost of each of the flats in question would be more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), and hence, in view of the decision of the larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC), the State Commission did not have the Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, the Appellants should have b