ORDER Ashok Bhan, President— Heard. Highland Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. petitioner herein (opposite party before the District Forum) has filed this revision petition. 2. Facts of this case are rather complicated, as the parties have had litigation on the same point before the different Forums. We would be referring to the facts, which are relevant for the decision of this case. 3. The petitioner is a Company carrying on activities of establishing resorts and raising plantations. Respondent Shri Damani M.N., who is appearing in person and his four relatives (on whose behalf, he is appearing as an Attorney), became members of the Highland Holiday Homes by paying a sum of Rs.45,000 for each member to enjoy the holiday at petitioner’s resort for a period of 10-14 days in a year. Case of the respondents was that one of the benefits offered by the petitioners to the members was that in the event, a member fails to avail 10 days stay in the resort, then, the member shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,250 per day. According to the respondents, they did not avail of the said benefit and, therefore, they requested the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.12,500 calculating @ Rs. 1,250 per day for a period of 10 days. The said request was not accepted by the petitioner on the ground that the agreement entered into between the parties did not provide for the same and, if any, such assurance was given by an employee of the petitioner (Sales Manager) to any member, the same was not binding on the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their request, the complainants filed complaints before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short). The District Forum vide its order dated 5.9.2003, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,500 to each of the complainants within 30 days from the date of passing of the order with interest @ 15% p.a. with effect from 15.4.2001 till the date of its realization. Cost of Rs.2,000 were also imposed. 5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal Nos. 115-1109 of 2003 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). Cost of Rs.2,000 were also imposed. 5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal Nos. 115-1109 of 2003 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). The State Commission vide its order dated 6.10.2004, upheld the order passed by the District Forum. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, petitioner filed several writ petition Nos. 46534 to 48008-11 of 2004 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ for short) .The Division Bench of the High Court vide its Order dated 11.11.2004, dismissed the writ petitions and observed as under: “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the complaints are maintainable. What he contends is that the State Forum should have remanded the case to the District Forum for adjudication of the complaints on merits. We do not think that it was necessary to adopt that course in the present case because, as already observed, the petitioner did not dispute the claim of the respondents on merits. Once the complaint is found to be maintainable, the order of the State Forum directing the petitioner to pay the amount as claimed had to be upheld. No fault can thus be found with the order passed by the State Forum.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The order of the High Court was not challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 8. The District Forum, following its order passed in the earlier complaints, allowed the complaint for succeeding year aggrieved against which the petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, taking the same view, which had been taken by it in the earlier cases, dismissed the appeals being barred by time as well as on merits. 9. Against the subsequent order passed by the State Commission, the present revision petitions have been filed. Revision petitions have also been filed against the orders passed by the State Commission, which had already been upheld by the High Court (supra). Initially, these revision petitions were disposed of but later on, the said order was recalled and that’s how we are called upon to hear them afresh. 10. Revision petitions have also been filed against the orders passed by the State Commission, which had already been upheld by the High Court (supra). Initially, these revision petitions were disposed of but later on, the said order was recalled and that’s how we are called upon to hear them afresh. 10. Based on the order passed by the State Commission which was upheld by the High Court, the respondent filed Execution Applications before the District Forum. The District Forum refused to pass any order on the Execution Application as similar matters were pending before this Commission for consideration. Respondents filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and ordered execution. Against those orders as well, the present revision petitions have been filed. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following Clause of Agreement, which reads as under: “Types of Membership xxx xxx Silver xxx ROI can be enjoyed at the prevailing rent for a period of 10 days in a year, if the cottage is not used by the member, throughout the year. xxx.” 12. According to him, in this Clause or in any other Clause, there is no mention that the member of the scheme would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,250 per day for 10 days, in case, he does not avail of the facility under the scheme every year. He has also referred to an order passed by the Civil Court, which was later on upheld by the High Court rejecting the prayer of the respondent for a similar relief. Against this, the respondent, who is appearing in-person, had pointed out that in his proposal form, it had communicated to the petitioner that they should be given a complimentary stay of 14 days in a year and, in addition, return Rs. l,250 per day for 10 days during their membership for 50 years. According to them that offer had been accepted by the Sales Manager of the petitioner. 13. All these points, which have been taken before us, are of no consequence in view of the fact that we cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the High Court. The High Court has already upheld the order passed by the State Commission. 13. All these points, which have been taken before us, are of no consequence in view of the fact that we cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the High Court. The High Court has already upheld the order passed by the State Commission. We cannot adjudicate on the pleas raised by the petitioner as the orders passed by the State Commission had already been upheld by the High Court. We cannot go into the pleas raised by the respondent as well as they are not in revision before us. 14. This Commission vide its order dated 13.9.2007, while upholding the order of the State Commission, had directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.45,000 paid by each member as membership fee with interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till its payment. Order of this Commission was subsequently reviewed. Against this order, review applications were filed which were dismissed on 4.7.2008. Subsequent thereto, petitioner filed another set of review applications in which the order dated 13.9.2007 was recalled and the revision petitions were ordered to be taken up on 15.9.2008. 15. Whatever amount has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions given by this Commission in the District Forum or the State Commission or any other amount, which may have been deposited be adjusted towards decreetal amount satisfying the claims of the respondents. After satisfying the claims of the respondents, the balance amount, if any, be paid to the petitioner. 16. Counsel for the petitioner, however, states that membership of the members has already been cancelled whereas according to the respondent, the same cannot be done. We are not going into this question. 17. By our order dated 15.9.2008, cost of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has assured that he will pay the cost to the respondents. 18. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss these revision petitions leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 19. This case be not taken as precedent for future reference as we have disposed of these revision petitions based on the order passed by the High Court. Revisions dismissed. ********