IA/1637/2020 This application was filed by the Complainant on 31.1.2020 in which he has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the Complaint. 2. It may be mentioned that the Complaint Case No. 519 of 2019 was filed on 29.3.2019. When it first came up before the Bench for consideration on 4.4.2019, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant sought an adjournment to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay. The instant application was thereafter filed on 31.1.2020 which has since been strongly opposed on behalf of the Opposite Party, who filed its Reply against the same on 16.3.2020. 3. It is the case of the Complainant that he had earlier filed his Complaint before the Ld. State Commission at Chandigarh on 3.10.2016 (being CC No. 666 of 2016). The same was, however, returned to him for presentation in the proper Forum as the dispute involved being more than Rs. 1.00 crore, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The said Complaint was returned on 5.12.2016. 4. Now, from the own averment of the Complainant in the original Complaint, it seen that he received a communication dated 15.1.2015 from the Opposite Party offering him possession and asking him to pay the dues which had accrued against him. The Complainant has only prayed for refund of the amount deposited by him with the Opposite Party. It has been his contention in the original Complaint that not only the demand for payment sent to him is disputable, but in any case he is not interested to receive possession of his allotted Plot on account of the delay involved. 5. Admittedly, the Complaint was filed on 29.3.2019 which was more than four years after the Letter offering possession-cum-Demand Notice dated 15.1.2015 was received by the Complainant, and which was his cause of action for filing the Complaint. The same was manifestly barred by limitation in excess of two years even allowing for the three days which may be discounted on account of the presentation of his Complaint and its return by the Ld. State Commission between 3rd to 5th October, 2016. 6. No tangible grounds justifying this inordinate delay have been made out in the instant application. Nevertheless, alongwith his rejoinder to the application filed on 5.3.2024, the Complaint has annexed a copy of the letter dated 31.8.2022 in which a similar demand for payment has been conveyed to him by the Opposite Party. The issuance of such Demand Notice in the year 2022 according to the Applicant/Complainant, in itself constitutes a continuing cause of action. 7. We are, however, not convinced by this submission. It is to be remembered that the prayer of the Complainant all along has been for seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the Opposite Party, and the Demand Notice in that regard sent to him on 15.1.2015 is stated to be cause of action for filing of the Complaint in 2019. Any similar Notice issued three years after the Complaint had already been filed, can by no means be taken as a continuing cause of action since by his own submission, the Complainant is not interested to take possession of his plot at this stage, although the record shows that on 21.3.2024 his Ld. Counsel had submitted that the Complainant was interested to take such possession, and for this purpose had obtained time for more than two months to file an appropriate amendment application. But no such application till date has been filed. Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party has on the other hand submitted that if the Complainant seeks possession, his client is still willing to give the same to him subject to payment of his outstanding dues, but the prayer for refund in the form it has been sought in the original Complaint is clearly time barred. 8. The instant application in the circumstances, is found to be bereft of merits, and is therefore dismissed. CC/519/2019 9. Consequently, the Complaint also stands dismissed as barred by limitation. | 
