PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties heard. Sh. S. Prakash Reddy, the complainant purchased a plot bearing No. A-32 admeasuring 2400 sq. yards under the payment option 7(b) i.e. out right payment scheme in Dream City II, Garden Unit Scheme (Sagar Block) under 1st Sector (Paradise) Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. Dist. and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 5,98,000/- out of price of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioner/opposite party Janaharsha Estates ‘N’ Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The complainant was yet to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the Opposite Party on 31.08.2002. As per the Clause 11 Ex.A-1 to A-20, the petitioner was to pay the rest of the amount with interest. 2. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. The District Forum directed the complainant to pay rest of Rs. 2,000/- with interest @ 18% alongwith Registration charges and Development charges fixed as on 30.03.2012. The OP was directed to register the sale deed in the name of the complainant. The complaint was allowed and compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from 31.08.2002 till realization was granted. It was further directed that after the receipt of the amount from the complainant, the registration certificate would be executed, within 30 days. The order of the District Forum pertains to 30.03.2013 in CC No. 93/2007. 3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP submits that the complaint is barred by time. The amount was given as back as in the year 2002 and the complaint was filed in the year 2007. 4. This contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner lacks conviction. This is an admitted fact that the complainant has not yet been given the possession of the plot. This is continuous cause of action, the limitation will continue till he gets the possession and the registration certificate is executed by the petitioner. This plea is dilatory and has been raised to waste the time of other party as well as this Commission. Consequently, this argument must be eschewed out of consideration. 5. Second argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the District Forum could not have reviewed its order. The State Commission has very well dealt with this argument. It is stated that the OP did not challenge the said order dated 29.08.2011. That order has attained finality. It cannot be raised time and again. This submission too, carries no value in the eyes of Law. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that this plot has already been registered in the name of Sh. B.V.S.N. Raj Kumar. The petitioner has failed to show its sale certificate/registration document. This appears to be a false allegation. The State Commission has rightly held that even if the said plot has been sold in favour of Sh. B.V.S.N. Raj Kumar, the plea of the petitioner is hit by principle of lis-pendence and the registration of Mr. B.V.S.N. Raj Kumar is not valid. No other point was urged before us. 7. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to execute the sale deed in the name of the complainant, within 45 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise he will have to pay penalty in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per day till the registration certificate is executed. The Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which would be adjusted from the amount to be paid by the complainant. Rest of order passed by the Fora below stands confirmed. | 
