JUDGMENT Pratima Malhotra, Member.—This is an appeal against the order dated 7-7-1992 delivered on 13-11-1992 by the District Forum, Solan. 2. The facts relevant to consideration of appeal are that the complainants/respondents had applied for one flat No. 4, Block 19 in the Housing Board Colony at Solan (Saproon), The tentative period of handing over possession of the flat was stated to be 2 1/2 years from the date of allotment The complainants/respondents had paid full amount of Rs. 2,14,600upto 18-3-1992 but they had not received the possession of flat for which they filed this complaint before the District Forum, Solan claiming in addition damages/compensation to the tune of Rs 1 lakh and interest at the rate of Rs. 25.75%. 3. During the course of proceedings, the parties came to a compromise through their counsels. The statement of Sh. L. N Sharma, Advocate, Counsel for H P. Housing Board the appellant is that the respondent Housing Board . will construct the house and will deliver the possession 10 the complainant by 31-12-1993". In his statement, counsel for the complainants/respondents stated "that in view of the statement of the learned Counsel for the Respondent I do not press the present complaint It may be directed that since the delay in the construction to the flat has been due to the fault of the respondent, the complaint will not be liable to pay any increase in price of the flat due to rise in cost of construction in the meantime and that in case the respondents fail to handover the possession of the flat by the due date the entire amount, of Rs. 2,14,600 shall be repaid by the respondent to the complainant by 31-1-1994 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p. a from the date of the deposit(s) of the amount by the complainant till the date of payment". 4. Thereupon the learned District Forum in its order dated the 7th July, 1992 directed "that the respondent shall not be entitled to recover any increase in the price of the flat due to rise in the cost of construction since the respondent has failed to construct the flat and deliver the possession of the same by the agreed date, that is, 3lst March, 1992. We further direct that in case the respondent fails to construct and deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant by 31-3-1993, the respondent shall be liable to refund the entire amount of Rs. 2,14,600 deposited by the complainant with the respondent towards the costs of flat with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the dale of deposit(s) till the date of repayment of the amount. The principle amount of Rs. 2,14,600 alongwith interest accrued due thereon at the above stipulated rate shall be refunded by the respondent to the complainant by 31st of January, 1994 No orders as to costs. The complaint stands disposed of, accordingly". 5. The case of the appellants is that their Counsel did not make any statement in regard to escalated cost of the flat or refund of the amount deposited with interest. The above order was in the nature of a consent decree. Naturally, therefore, as per well settled principle, the order could not possibly go beyond what had been consented to by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, we find no valid reason for the learned District Forum below to have issued directions to the effect that any increase in the price of the flat due to rise in cost of construction would not be payable by the complainants/respondents before us and further that if the appellants fail to construct and deliver the possession of the flat to the complainants/respondents by the 31st December, 1993, the appellants shall be liable to refund the entire amount deposited with them with interest at the rate of 18% etc., etc. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has clarified before us that notwithstanding the grounds of appeal the appellants would abide by the assurance to complete the construction and hand over the possession of the flat in question to the respondents on or before the 31st December, 1993. 6 In the light of the above, we are afraid that the impugned order in-so-far as it binds the appellants not to recover the escalated price as also to refund the amount and pay interest in addition in default of handing over the possession by the 31st December, 1993 cannot be sustained in law. 6 In the light of the above, we are afraid that the impugned order in-so-far as it binds the appellants not to recover the escalated price as also to refund the amount and pay interest in addition in default of handing over the possession by the 31st December, 1993 cannot be sustained in law. The said order is accordingly modified to the extent that the appellants shall complete construction of the flat No. 4, Block 19 in the Housing Board Colony at Solan (Saproon) and deliver its possession to the respondents/complainants latest by 31st December, 1993. 7. No order as to costs. Announced at Shimla on this 3rd day of September, 1993. Appeal allowed.