M.M. Kumar, Acg. C.J. - (1.) THE instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 18.7.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once the appellants have succeeded in claiming refund of the price of the plot before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for brevity, 'the Consumer Forum'), then there was no scope for interference to issue direction for allotment of plot instead of the refund. It is further appropriate to mention that the order dated 26.7.2000, passed by the Consumer Forum was challenged by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) -respondent before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for brevity, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1437 of 2000. The order of the Consumer Forum was affirmed and the rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 12%, vide order dated 9.10.2000. The revision petition preferred by the HUDA before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was also dismissed vide order dated 12.9.2001. Thereafter the matter travelled up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) CC No. 2565 of 2004 and attained finality. The view of the learned Single Judge is evident from the concluding para which reads as under: As is apparent from the pleadings, the plot in question was allotted to the petitioners in the Urban Estate, Bhiwani, some time in the year 1993. The petitioners filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, praying for refund of the amount. The petitioners' prayer was accepted and the respondents were directed to refund the amount. The order was eventually upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that some time later the petitioners underneath a change of heart apparently in view of phenomenal escalation in prices of property and wrote a letter seeking possession of the plot instead of refund of the money. The petitioners request has been rejected and rightly so, as the petitioners cannot be allowed to change their stance particularly when the matter with respect to refund has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, and as the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed.
(2.) MR . Vishal Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioner appellants has vehemently argued that there was no appeal or revision or writ petition filed by them and the order was challenged only by the HUDA. According to the learned counsel the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellants was maintainable and the order dated 11.2.2011 (P -8), passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, needs to be set aside. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the petitioner -appellants have been labouring under some wrong impression and are absolutely ill advised. Once the matter has attained finality up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is sheer misuse of the process of the Court to reopen the issue by availing one remedy or the other. The rights of the parties stand crystalised in the order dated 26.7.2000, passed by the Consumer Forum, which have been modified by the State Commission in the first appeal filed by the HUDA, vide order dated 9.10.2000. The revision petition before the National Commission also failed and the SLP filed by the HUDA was dismissed on 26.3.2004. Once the aforesaid orders have attained finality, it is not possible to interfere. There is complete misuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. We saddle the petitioner -appellants with cost of Rs. 10,000/ - which may be deposited with the Member Secretary, Mediation Centre, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.;