1. The petitioners herein are  respectively the erstwhile and subsequent owner of Flat No. 102, 6^th Floor, Sliver City Themes, Village Bhankharpur, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. Mohali. The consideration amount was Rs.12,20,000/-. The petitioner no. 1 advanced a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- at the time of booking. Later on the said property was negotiated by the petitioner no. 1 with the petitioner no. 2 who is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.5,12,810/- with the second respondent. The respondent no. 2 took a stand that there was no contractual relationship with the petitioner no. 2 and the said amount had been received under a mistaken impression as if the same was being deposited on behalf of the petitioner no. 1. The case of the respondent before the District Commission on a complaint being filed was that they had cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and they had never agreed to sell it to the petitioner no. 2. Consequently, the amount of Rs.5,12,810/- was sought to be refunded vide a demand draft dated 23.12.2011, which was not received. The respondent no. 2therefore filed a suit before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division seeking the following reliefs:

“Suit for Declaration to the effect that the alleged agreement dated 20.10.2011 if any executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Defendant no. 1 regarding Flat No. 102-F, 6^th Floor, Sliver City Themes, Village Bhankharpur, Tehsil Derabassi Distt. Mohali is illegal null and void qua the rights of plaintiff and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff

And

Suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 1 to receive the amount of Rs.5,12,810/- sent by the plaintiff through Draft No. 009278, which was returned by Defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff through notice dated 14.01.2012.”

2. The said suit had been filed arraying the present petitioners as defendants therein. The suit was however dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.11.2014, which fact is not disputed by the respondent.
3. The complaint giving rise to this petition being CC/294/2012 was filed on 14.05.2012, alleging deficiency against the respondents praying to hand over possession of the flat in question on full payment together with other reliefs in the complaint.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that while refunding the amount of Rs.5,12,810/-, the letter dated 23.12.2011 stated that the allotment in favour of the petition no. 1 was cancelled and the demand draft had been sent to the petitioner no. 2. The complainants on their part alleged that they sent a reminder representation on 24.12.2011 requesting the respondents to receive the full and final settlement payment for delivery of possession but instead the respondents declined and compelled the petitioners to file the complaint. The documents on which reliance was placed by the petitioner contained allegations and counter allegations on disputed factual aspects and therefore the District Commission ultimately dismissed the complaint as not entertainable since there are allegations of fabrication in record and the genuiness of the documents, the same would require examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. It was also observed that the inferences of forgery, fraud or fabrication cannot be derived and gone into in summary proceedings. It was therefore dismissed on 24.05.2013.
5. It may be mentioned that the respondents had forfeited the earnest money deposited by the complainant no. 1 to the tune of Rs.1,22,000/-.
6. Aggrieved, both the complainants filed First Appeal No. 273 of 2013 and the same was also dismissed on 08.07.2013 by the impugned order.
7. A perusal of the facts that have been delineated in the orders of the District Commission and also somewhat repeated in the order of the State Commission, indicates that the complainant no. 1 had booked the premises  and advanced a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as earnest money  that has been forfeited by the opposite party on the ground of having cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner no. 1. It is also evident that the respondents denied having any contractual relationship with the petitioner no. 2 yet they had received an amount of Rs.5,12,810/-. This was sought to be returned by the second respondent through a demand draft dated 23.12.2011, which was not encashed by the petitioner no. 2.
8. During the course of arguments,  learned counsel for the respondent urged that the respondent would refund the said amount of Rs.5,12,810/- but without any interest and so far as the forfeiture from the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the same has been done in accordance with the terms of the allotment which came to be cancelled.
9. In the above background  it is urged that this revision petition does not deserve any interference with the impugned orders that has rightly relegated the petitioners to seek their remedy elsewhere because the dispute cannot be resolved as it involves serious complicated questions of fact for which evidence has to be led that cannot be dealt with in summary proceedings.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having observed the admitted fact of Rs.5,12,810/- being received by the respondents, it is evident that they cannot retain this money as they themselves are denying  a contractual relationship with the petitioner no. 2. The said amount which had been tendered way back in 2011 was not encashed by the petitioner no. 2 and in such circumstances, if this is an admitted position, then the refund of the said amount to the petitioner no. 2 deserves to be made which has also been offered by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments. She has however resisted the payment of any interest as there was no fault on the part of the respondents who had honestly tendered the amount back to the petitioner no. 2 but was not encashed by her. There is an element of deficiency only against refund. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs.5,12,810/- remained with the respondents without passing it on to the petitioner no. 2 which fact is not disputed. The said money therefore is not lying idle and must have earned interest thereon. Consequently, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the said amount of Rs.5,12,810/- is refunded back to the petitioner no. 2 together with interest @ 9% per annum. The same may be paid within a period of three months from today.
11. So far as the forfeiture part is concerned the said forfeiture has taken place in an automated fashion without prior notice of cancellation to the petitioner no. 1. This forfeiture therefore does not seem to be in conformity entirely with the terms of the agreement, but at the same time this entire complication has been created by the petitioner no. 1 herself. We therefore do not allow any interest to her but with a direction that a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- paid by petitioner no. 1 shall be refunded to her within the same period as permitted hereinabove.

12. The revision petition stands disposed off on the said terms on peculiar facts of this case and is not to be treated as a precedent.