This revision petition challenges the order dated 23.06.2010 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant with the following observations and directed as under: . It appears that earlier, the scheme was cancelled on account of some violation of provisions of law and not on account of any failure on the part of the complainant/appellant. Even after receiving this letter, Annexure OP 12, neither the complainant obtained refund of the amount deposited by him nor the respondent Development Authority had taken any further step to refund the amount. Thus, it appears that the amount remained deposited with the Development Authority against the allotment of plot. Then, again proposal was made by the respondent authority in the year 2007 for allotment of another plot and against the allotment of new plot, the amount which was earlier deposited by the complainant/appellant was given set off and remaining amount was demanded. Thus, it is clear that the respondent authority was also admitting that the amount of cost of the plot was already with it and was given set off against cost of the new plot. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant herein had ever made proposal for allotment of fresh plot. In view of letter of the respondent Development Authority and the fact that the amount remained deposited with the Development Authority, the complaint filed by the respondent cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 9. As the District Forum has mainly dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation and not taken into consideration merits of the case, so we refrain to consider any further merits of the case and prefer to remand the matter back to the District Forum, so that both parties can adduce their further evidence and then the case can be decided afresh, on its merits, without being influenced by any observation made in this order or in the order passed earlier by the District Forum. 10. Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to decide the matter afresh. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 20.07.2010. No order as to cost 2. I have heard Mr. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Authority. 3. The State Commission noticed the facts relating to the case in the following words: . The facts of the case are that the appellant herein deposited Rs.20,561/- to the respondent against plot no. E-1/1, Sector 1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur. On account of certain reasons that scheme was cancelled by the respondent/ Raipur Development Authority and a letter was written to the complainant, stating therein that allotment of plot has been cancelled and the money, deposited, may be refunded to the complainant, on showing the original receipt. However, the money remained deposited with the respondent development authority. Later on, on 12.06.2007, the respondent again wrote a letter informing that the place of plot No. E-1/1, another plot no. C/1-19/2 of 2000 sq.ft. may be allotted to the complainant on certain terms. That letter was replied by the complainant and demand was made that the plot be allotted on old rate. When this prayer was not allowed, then consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum 4 (i) From a plain reading of the facts of the case and the detailed discussion in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the State Commission impugned order, it is clear that the complaint of the respondent/complainant could not have been dismissed merely on the ground of limitation. (ii) However, Mr. Chouksey sought to rely on the decision of this Commission in the case of Raipur Development Authority vs Smt. Indira Devi Meghani to press his point of limitation. In the cited case, allotment of the plot in favour of the complainant was cancelled by the petitioner authority in view of her failure to deposit the requisite amount demanded by the petitioner authority by the stipulated date 30.03.1992. This notice of demand had clarified that the allotment of plot would stand automatically cancelled in case of failure of the allottee/complainant to deposit the additional amount by 30.03.1992. This point was reiterated by the authority in its letter dated 21.01.1999 in response to the allottee/complainant letter dated 01.01.1999. The Board of the petitioner authority also decided by a resolution dated 09.05.2006 that the allotment in favour of the complainant could not be reinstated because it had been cancelled long ago for failure on her part and that the amount deposited by her should be refunded. This decision was conveyed to the complainant by the authority vide its letter dated 03.07.2006. (iii) In view of these facts, this Commission held that the complaint filed by the allottee/complainant in May 2007 was barred by limitation and the view taken by the State Commission that the cause of action for the allottee/complainant arose on 03.07.2006 was erroneous. (iv) However, it is clear from a reading of the facts that in this case the petitioner/authority did not refund the amount initially deposited by the respondent/complainant and that amount was adjusted by the authority in 2007 in connection with the subsequent allotment of another plot of land. As observed by the State Commission in its impugned order, the authority thus admitted continuation of the previous deposit made by the respondent/complainant and signified its acquiescence that the respondent/complainant continued to have valid and continuing interest in the allotment of an alternative plot of land in lieu of that under the cancelled scheme. (v) In such a situation, the cause of action in favour of the respondent/complainant has to be held to have continued. Therefore, the ratio of the above-mentioned decision of this Commission would not be applicable to this case. (vi) Moreover, by its impugned order, the State Commission has merely remanded the complaint back to the District Forum with the direction to decide the matter afresh on merits, after allowing the petitioner authority and the complainant to adduce evidence in respect of their respective contentions before the District Forum, instead of merely relying on the so- called ground of limitation barring consideration of the complaint. This does not, therefore, cause any undue prejudice to the petitioner. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost.