PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Delay of 59 days is condoned. The Complainant had applied for allotment of MIG/GF flat in Sector 29, Faridabad against reserves category in the year 1981. His application was considered for the draw of lots held on 23.11.1981, but he was not successful. According to the complainant, he was informed by letter dated 14.1.1982 that in case he was interested, his name can be considered for allotment for MIG/GF houses as there was shortfall of SC candidates for allotment in the said category. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3680/-, which he deposited with the OP. The Housing Board acknowledged the receipt of the amount as also gave Regn. No.1340/MIG/GF/FF vide their letter dated 18.2.1982. On 21.9.1990, the Complainant was told that he would not be allotted any house as his name has been transferred from SC quota to general quota. According to the Complainant, he had sought relief from the Civil Court as also from the Appellate Court, but could not get any relief as he could not led any evidence. The Complainant had also approached the High Court, but did not get any relief. According to the Complainant, the cause of action arose on 21.5.1990 and finally when the legal notice dated 13.3.1999 was served on the OP. The Complainant, therefore, sought directions for allotment of one house of MIG/FF or MIG/GF in Sector 29, Faridabad in SC quota as also compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Respondents to allot one house of MIG/FF or MIG/GF in Sector 29 in Haryana Housing Board, Faridabad from the houses reserved from SC quota on the basic price of the house. The District Forum also directed the Respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. This order was challenged by the OP/Petitioner before the State Commission with delay of 804 days by filing appeal. The State Commission has condoned the delay and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. How the jurisdiction of the Forum/Courts can be misused is best illustration by this case. In the complaint it was stated that after deposit of an amount of Rs.3680/- in the year 1982, the Complainant patiently waited for allotment of the house from the Haryana Housing Board and made several visits to the Housing Board and was told by officials that 43 MIG/FF houses were under construction at Sector 29, Faridabad and he will be allotted one of the said houses. No details of the visits to the Haryana Housing Board nor names of the officials have been disclosed to substantiate the said fact alleged by the Complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that on 21.9.1990, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, he was told that he would not be allotted any house as his name has been transferred from SC quota to general quota. No details in respect of these averments have been given except that he was informed of the same by CRO, Housing Board Haryana whose name has not been disclosed. Be that as it may, even according to the Complainant the cause of action had accrued on 21.5.1990 when he was informed by CRO Housing Board Haryana that his name would be considered for allotment of the house and the cause of action is accruing every day and it finally accrued when legal notice dated 13.3.1999 was served on the Respondent. In our opinion, the cause of action on 21.5.1990 has been coined by the Complainant. The complaint was filed on 6.8.2001 and the delay in filing the complaint was explained on the ground that he had approached the Civil Court and then High Court under mistaken advice of Counsel. The District Forum did not even bother to examine the issue of delay in approaching the Forum with gross delay of more than 10 years. The Complainant had filed civil suit in the year, 1990. The said suit was dismissed since the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence even though several opportunities were given to him since 11.1.1991 which is clear from the judgement dated 12.4.1994 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Faridabad. The appeal filed by the Complainant against the said order was withdrawn. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction and the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgement dated 11.5.1998. The operative part of the judgement reads as under: hri Panwar tried to wriggle out of the dismissed of the civil suit and the appeal by saying that the appeal was withdraw in view of the assurance given by the representative of the Housing Board, but we are unable to accept his plea in view of the categorical and uncontroverted statement made in paragraph 5 of the written statement that no assurance was given by the Board before the learned Appellate Court to reconsider the matter in dispute and in fact only the counsel for the appellant had made the statement After the dismissal of the civil suit as also the writ petition the litigation is being fought by proxy namely the General Power of Attorney with ulterior objective to obtain orders from the Consumer Forum which met with initial success with the District forum but was rightly repelled by the State Commission. Having failed in the civil court as also in the writ petition before the High Court, the Complainant resorted to the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act. In the light of the background of the above litigation, the complaint in question could not be entertained and the District Forum committed grave error in not only entertaining the complaint on the same cause of action which had been dealt with by the civil court as also the High Court, but the District Forum also failed to consider the question of limitation in terms of Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances, the State Commission had very rightly not only condoned the delay of 804 days in filing the appeal by the present petitioner, but had rightly set aside the order of the District Forum. The State Commission had also rightly blamed the officials of the Haryana Housing Board against whom disciplinary action was ordered to be taken. In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.