Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.09 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (in short ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 5 of 2008, the original complainant has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant at the admission stage itself on twin grounds, viz., complaint was filed by inflating the valuation and the relief in order to give jurisdiction to the State Commission and secondly, the complaint was filed after delay, which was not explained. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the complaint are amply noted by the State Commission in the impugned order. The grievance of the complainant was that the builder respondent had not given him the occupancy certificate and had not executed the conveyance deed in respect of the shop in question sold by him despite the complainant having paid the entire consideration at the time of agreement itself. The State Commission going by the fact that the agreement to sell the shop was executed on 22.04.02 and that possession had already been handed over to the complainant thereafter and the complaint was filed in the year 2008, dismissed the complaint holding that it was filed after delay of four years giving a margin of two years during which the complaint can be filed in terms of section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission has erred in law in reaching the said finding because the cause of action based on which the complaint was filed was a subsisting and continuing one because under the agreement dated 22.04.2002 the respondent was obliged to give the occupancy certificate and execute the conveyance deed which he did not execute despite several requests. Lastly by a declaration dated 21.03.2007, the respondent himself had assured and undertaken to handover the occupancy certificate to the complainant. On the face of this position and the fact that as per the respondent’s own showing the occupancy certificate was not delivered to the complainant, the cause of action on that account which had arisen in favour of the appellant will be deemed to be a subsisting and continuing one till such time, the said certificate is delivered. It is not the case of the respondent that such a certificate has been obtained by him from the concerned authorities and has been handed over to the Appellant. 4. So far as the valuation of the complaint is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant under instructions states that the appellant would suitably reduce the valuation and modify the complaint and the amended complaint will be filed in the concerned District Forum rather than before the State Commission. 5. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order so far as it has held that the complaint filed by the appellant is barred by limitation is hereby set aside. However, the remaining part of the order holding that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is upheld. The appellant is granted liberty to file an amended complain before the appropriate District Forum within two weeks from the date of this order. The complaint so filed shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the said forum. A copy of this order be given dasti to both sides.