On petitioner/complainant’s approaching the respondent/ opposite party- Bank, the Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- as term loan and Rs. 2,00,000/- as cash credit limit to the petitioner. Loan was sanctioned against the machineries to be purchased by using the loan amount as a security. Amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was released by the Bank for purchase of one machine from M/s. Prasad Industries. Since the remaining machineries were not purchased within three months as per the condition of sanction of loan, the Bank declined to release the further amount. In this backdrop, State Commission while setting aside the order of District Forum found the Bank not to be deficient in service. Having heard Shri Naik and the conditions of loan, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed.