JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER The bare facts of the revision petition are these. Respondent/ complainant, Smt. Bimla Devi was allotted a plot by Haryana Urban Development Authority, bearing No. 1758 in Sector 13, HUDA, Bhiwani, vide allotment letter dated 27.08.1991. The letter also mentioned the tentative price of the said plot as Rs.2,46,960/-. The respondent deposited the entire amount. The grouse of the respondent/complainant was that she was not given the possession of the said plot. 2. On the other hand, the petitioner hotly contested the complaint. According to it, the offer of possession was given to the complainant on 25.06.1994 and the complainant challenged the development after 10 years. All the disputes, according to the Agreement, were to be decided by the Arbitrator, the Chief Administrator or any other Officer, appointed by him. It is averred that in order to bring this case within the period of limitation, the legal notice was served on 10.02.2003. Since the offer of possession was made after providing the essential amenities, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Both the fora below have passed the orders against the petitioner. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, at the time of admission of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this case was barred by time. He admitted that, although, the petitioner could not produce conclusive evidence that the offer was made to the petitioner to have the possession of the plot on 25.06.1994, yet, it was the duty of the respondent to approach the HUDA, for getting the possession of the premises, in dispute. 4. Instead of coming to the centre of the point, the learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on peripheral matters. It appears that the petitioner has placed on record the letter offering the possession vide letter dated 25.06.1994 bearing Memo No. EOB 2349. However, the petitioner has failed to prove that this letter has been served upon the respondent/complainant. The District Forum gave several opportunities to the petitioner to prove this plea of producing cogent and plausible evidence, but the same was not produced for the reasons best known to it. In the absence of this evidence, the clear picture does not emerge. The production of this documentary proof would have gone a long way to pull this case out of the morass it is in. Consequently, it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred or there was no deficiency on the part of HUDA. This is no part of the duty of the complainant to approach the petitioner. The revision petition is dismissed, in limine, with no order as to costs.