We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), by which the Appeal, preferred by the Respondents herein, has been allowed in part and certain directions, given by the District Forum, have been modified.

          The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondents herein had paid a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- and the balance sum of Rs. 3,45,000/- remains to be paid for getting the conveyance deed executed.

          The submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has no merits for the simple reason that both the District Forum and the State Commission have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the Respondents herein had paid a total sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Petitioners on various dates.  The said dates were also given by the Respondents herein, to which no evidence of denial or any other document, controverting the payment, has been filed by the Petitioners.  The relevant finding of the State Commission is reproduced below:

“The Lawyer’s letter dated 8.5.2013 of the Respondents/Complainants addressed to the Appellants/Ops demonstrates the details of payment of Rs.11,00,000/- by the Respondents/Complainants to the Appellants/Ops.  No document of denial by the Appellants/OPs of such details of payment are either available on records or have been furnished by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs before this Commission, indicating thereby the absence of dispute on the part of the Appellants/OPs in respect of payment of Rs.11,00,000/- on principle of acquiescence and equity as well.”

          From a perusal of the aforesaid finding recorded by the State Commission, we find that the payment of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the Respondents to the Petitioners herein has not been disputed by the Petitioners either by filing any evidence to controvert it or even denying the payment so made vis-à-vis notice sent by Respondents’ Counsel before filing the Complaint.

          That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case in which the impugned order passed by the State Commission can be interfered with in the exercises of our revisional jurisdiction.

          In view of the above, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.