PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard proxy counsel for the Petitioner. The revision is directed against the concurrent findings of two Fora below . The case of the complainant is that he had deposited a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards extension fee under protest through bank draft dated 30.12.1999. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Opposite Party No.2 had issued occupation certificate in respect of the plot, in question on 31.12.1999. According to the complainant the extension fee at the rates prescribed in Rule 13(3) of the Rules, 1995, before amendment in the year 2001 for the period from 1.7.1997 to 31.12.1999 came to Rs.2,195/- only and as such he was entitled to refund of the excess amount of Rs.33,805/- out of Rs.36,000/- deposited by him. The complaint was filed to seek refund on 11.3.2004 whereas the said amount had been deposited on 30.12.1999. The District Forum noticed that the complaint was signed by one Santokh Singh and the complaint was filed in the name of Sham Singh S/o Sohan Singh through General Power of Attorney Shri Santokh Singh. However, no General Power Attorney was filed before the District Forum. Therefore, the District Forum held that the power of attorney holder was not entitled to file the complaint. The District Forum also held that the complaint was barred by limitation since the cause of action had arisen on 30.12.1999 when the sum of Rs.36,000/- was deposited, but the complaint for refund was filed only on 11.3.2004. The order of District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The State Commission agreed with the findings of the District Forum and recorded findings that though the complaint was filed by Sham Singh through general power of attorney, yet no such power of attorney was produced . Besides this, it was also held that complaint was barred by limitation. In our view, the Fora below have recorded findings on the basis of material on record and the same do not call for interference. In view of the findings of the Fora below, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.