JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Smt. Gyanwati Jain, the complainant applied for allotment of a MIG House in General Registration Scheme, 1982 of Rajasthan Housing Board by furnishing a Bank draft in the sum of Rs.3,000/- dated 08.12.1982. The complainant was allotted Seniority No.1198 in Sanganer Housing Scheme, floated by Rajasthan Housing Board, the OP, through lottery/draw on 28.12.1985. Thereafter, the Rajasthan Housing Board sent a reservation letter dated 31.12.1993, demanding seed money which the complainant paid in installments of Rs.10,000/- on 27.01.1994, Rs.7,500/- on 23.06.1994 and Rs.7,500/- on 30.01.1995. 2. The Rajasthan Housing Board issued a Circular dated 02.08.1994, in which it asked all the applicants to give option to accept allotment on outright sale basis keeping in view the huge amounts of installments remaining outstanding. The priority of the complainant was not disturbed. The amount of three-seed amount/money installments @ Rs.17,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as per the rate prevalent on 06.07.1998, on higher purchase basis was sent. However, the complainant could not deposit the said amount and the installments as per the demand. The priority number 1198 of the complainant was for the allotment of a house on hire-purchase basis which was to be matured in the year 1999. However, the priority number 1198 of the complainant, could not be matured in the year 1999. The complainant had failed to pay the amount. She was required to pay the amount by 06.02.1999. The possession letter was given to her on 28.09.1999 and she was required to receive possession upto 14.11.1999 by depositing the initial amount + interest @ Rs.72,052/-. The OP fixed Rs.3,152/- as monthly installment payable before 15.11.1999 as she had opted for hire-purchase basis. 3. The complainant did not deposit the demanded amount till 18.05.2001. Consequently, her registration was cancelled on 18.07.2001. However, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers :- ) That the aforementioned deficiencies present in the service of the opposite party be removed, and the amount of Rs.27,350/- mentioned illegally in the column of interest on outstanding seed money exhibit 16 of the allotment letter be cancelled. b) That the opposite party adopted evading attitude, kept optional view of eligibility of the complainant, treated the complainant defaulter of seed money, at the time of allotting house in 1995 to the persons having equivalent seniority, but did not allot the house in favour of the complainant, negligently treating the seniority in 1999 and issuing the allotment letter appendix-16, compensation of Rs.80,528/- mentioned in para 10 of the plaint of the suit (dispute) be ordered to be given to the complainant on the same cost on which the house was given to the applicants having 01197 the seniority before the seniority number of the complainant 01198 or having later seniority number 01199. On the same price the house number 160/62 Pratap Nagar Sanganer or any other house of 90 square meter area in Sanganer be ordered to be given to the complainant. c) That the court be pleased to order to give the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against mental torture and other tortures to the complainant as mentioned in para No.11 of the dispute suit. d) That cost of the dispute suit and the cost of taking action in the matter being Senior citizen for spending time, labour and money and advocate fee Rs.11,000/- be ordered to pay to the complainant. e) That in this case, the liability be fixed against all the departmental officers and employees found guilty. f) That the court be pleased to order grant any other relief which deem suitable and fit, in favour of the complainant 4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to make available to the complainant a house in two months, situated in Sanganer Pratap Nagar Scheme at the value and rate prevalent in 1995 and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs of the suit to the complainant. 5. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the day, the house No.160/62 was allotted to the complainant on 28.09.1999, be again allotted or similar house be allotted to her on the said date at the value and rate prevalent on the said date and a new allotment letter and possession letter be issued to her. Rest of the orders were not disturbed. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant admitted that till now, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- only. He admitted that no other installments were deposited. The counsel for the petitioner further admitted that registration of the allotment was cancelled on 18.07.2001. 7. It is, thus clear that this case is barred by time. The present complaint was filed, five yearsafter the house in question was cancelled. The case is barred by time. This view is further emboldened by the Honle Supreme Court in the following judgments. (1) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9307 of 2013, decided on 08.03.2013 (Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (I) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) (2) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.29487 of 2012, decided on 10.10.2012 (Sunil Kumar Vs. B.M.Sahara Commercial Corporation Ltd.) (3) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.39938, decided on 21.01.2013 (Tapan Kumar Ghosh Vs. Manager, Sh.Krishna Builders & Developer). The aforesaid authorities were followed in (4) O.K. Guar Vs. Choithram Hospital & Research & Centre (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.1115 of 2013), decided on 07.01.2013, by which, the Honle Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the order of this Commission passed on 09.03.2012, in RP No.447 of 2010. Honle Apex Court took the same view in (5) Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 CTJ 951 (SC) (CP) and (6) State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP). 8. It must be borne in mind that the petitioner herself had agreed to purchase the house on hire-purchase basis. She did not pay the money at one go. Installments were fixed as per her own request. There is not even an iota of evidence that she paid the monthly installments from the year 1991 to 2001. She was required to pay a sum of Rs.3,152/- , p.m., but there was no compliance of this condition. The counsel for the petitioner also admitted that the complainant could not deposit three-seed money in the year 1998 in the sum of Rs.17,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. Under these circumstances, no deficiency of service can be attributed upon the petitioner. 9. The complainant attempt to make bricks without straw does not bring the desired result. In view of this discussion, we hereby accept the revision petition, set aside the orders passed by the fora below and dismiss the complaint, filed by the complainant/ respondent. However, the petitioner is directed to return the sum of Rs.25,000/- or whatever total money the opposite party has obtained, to the complainant, with interest @ 10% p.a., from the date of deposit, till its realization, within a period of 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, the interest shall stand enhanced to 15% p.a., after 90 days of the receipt of this order from the date of this judgment, till compliance of the order. 10. Costs imposed on the petitioner on 16.04.2014 has since been paid to the Legal Heir, Sh. Manak Chand Gupta, husband of the deceased respondent, on 01.05.2014. The decretal amount be also paid to Shri Manak Chand.