ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The apprehension of the appellant-[M/s.Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., for short 'JAL'] that the observations made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the Commission') in the impugned judgment may denude the appellant from pursuing its legitimate plea to resist the claim set up by the complainant(s), in our opinion, can be rederessd by clarifying the position that the observations in the impugned judgment are for the limited purpose of deciding the preliminary objection taken by the appellant regarding the maintainability of the complaint before the Commission, in particular, against the appellant-JAL. 3. Indubitably, the discussion in the impugned judgment may have to be understood as only having considered the preliminary objection and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the pleas otherwise available to all the parties in the complaint. In other words, all contentions available to the respondent(s) in the complaint including on the relief of possession and refund against JAL will have to be adjudicated by the Commission on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned judgment. 4. We make it clear that Commission may examine "all" contentions available to "both sides" regarding the rights and obligations of the parties inter se on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment. 6. We once again make it clear that the impugned order may not be construed as having given any direction to the respondents in the complaint. The Commission, however, may give appropriate directions in the final Judgment which obviously will be subject to the outcome of theproceedings before the NCLT insofar as JIL is concerned and also subject to the outcome of proceedings against JAL before the NCLT. 7. The appeals and pending applications are disposed of accordingly,