ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President—Revision Petition No. 3324 / 2009 was filed by the Petitioners against the Order dated 2.07.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission).The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint. Brief facts of filing the complaint were that the Complainant/Petitioner was allotted Plot No. 275 in Faridabad by the Respondent Authority. The possession of the plot was delivered on 07.09.2000.Petitioner/Complainant complained Respondent Authority about HT wires over the plot. The Respondent Authority wrote to the concerned Authority for removing HT wires, in reply the concerned Authority informed that the HT Wires had already been shifted on 25.11.2001. On the request of the Petitioner/Complainant of surrendering the Plot, the Respondent Authority refunded the deposited amount after deducting 10% of the total-sale consideration. Amount charged towards interest was also refunded to the Petitioner/Complainant. After about 3 ½ years of the receiving of refund, the Petitioner/Complainant filed Complaint seeking allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of earlier allotted, i.e., Plot No. 275. Complaint was resisted by the Respondent Authority on the ground that the Petitioner did not have any cause of action after having received the amount without any protest in the year 2002.Complaint was allowed by the District Forum. On Appeal, the State Commission dismissed the Complaint. In Revision Petition against the Order passed by the State Commission, this Commission dismissed the Revision Petition vide Order dated 26.10.2009 by observing as under:-

“Thrust of argument advanced by Shri Madhurendra Kumar, Adv. whom we have heard on admission, is that the petitioners have paid to the authority the entire sale consideration of plot No.215 whereof possession has been given to the petitioners on 28.01.2008 and petitioners have also got the building plan sanctioned and the Order of State Commission being erroneous deserves to be set aside. Submission is, however, without any merit. It is not in dispute that possession of allotted Plot No. 275 was given on 07.09.2000; on petitioners’ making application on 5-3-2002 for surrendering that plot and seeking refund of the deposited amount, two amounts of ¹ 8,81,725/- and ¹ 19,176/- were refunded to them in March and May, 2002 by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that complainant was thereafter filed on 12.09.2005 after expiry of about 3 ½ years f the receipt of said two amounts by the petitioners. Having surrendered plot No. 275 and having received the two amounts of ¹ 8,81,725/- and ¹ 19,176/- the petitioners could not turn around and file complaint seeking allotment of an alternative plot and other reliefs. HT wires passing over plot No. 275 had been shifted before surrendering the plot by moving application on 05.03.2002. Petitioners cannot now be heard to say that they were compelled to surrender plot No. 275 as the area wherein this plot was located, had not been developed by the authority. State Commission had, thus, rightly set aside the Forum’s unusual order and dismissed the Complaint.

To be noted that the authority was forced to give possession of another plot No. 215 to the petitioners on 28-1-2008 in execution proceedings during the pendency of appeal as the operation of the order of District Forum was not stayed in appeal. On the analogy of Section 144 CPC the petitioners are liable to restore/deliver back the possession of the said plot to the authority on District Forum’s order pursuant to which possession was taken by them, having been set aside. Payment of the sale consideration and building plan being sanctioned have no relevance whatsoever in the matter.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed being without any merit.”

2. Now, the Petitioners/Complainants have preferred the Miscellaneous Application No. 256 / 2020 seeking follo