5.       We have given our anxious though to the rival contentions. We may note that for the purpose of considering the aspect of limitation, three dates are important. Firstly, the date of application for the plot which is 21.8.2000, secondly the date of allotment which is 2.3.2001 and lastly the date of filing of the complaint in question and the same as per the District Forum order is 7.9.2005 (mentioned as date of institution). Needless to mention that the period of limitation has to be counted from the date of the cause of action and as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer complaint has to be filed within two years of the arising of the cause of action. Perusal of the complaint of the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner is quite aware that she has delayed considerably in filing her consumer complaint. In this context, it is interesting to note that while she has devoted six paras of her complaint mentioning about the difficulties faced by the family which kept the complainant and other members of her family busy thereby delaying the lodging of the complaint but she has not indicated anywhere as to how and when she came to know about the allotment of the plot in question in her name. She has also alleged that she never received the allotment letter dated 2.3.2001. It is also rather strange that although she has claimed to have sent letters to the respondents on 29.10.2001, 6.3.2002, 28.10.2002, 4.6.2003, 8.9.2003, 5.12.2003, 21.1.2004 and 14.12.2004, she chose to send all these letters under simple “UPC” and kept on waiting patiently for a reply which, according to her allegations, was denied by the respondents to her and eventually on 14.12.2004 i.e. after more than four years of her application for the plot, thought it appropriate to send her letter requesting for issuance of the allotment letter vide registered post on 14.12.2004. While the District Forum accepted her explanation and entertained the complaint on the ground that it involved continuous cause of action, the State Commission has reversed its finding by holding that the cause of action would start from the date of allotment and simply because she kept on sending representation, it would not extend the period of limitation and as such the complaint filed by her on 7.9.2005 was clearly time barred under Section 24A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence it could not have been entertained by the District Forum.

6.       We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. We have no manner of doubt in our mind that the petitioner had come to know about the allotment of plot to her much earlier than the date of her registered letter sent on 14.12.2004. However, in order to cover her complaint within the period of limitation, she has carefully avoided to mention anything as to how and on which date she came to know about the allotment of the plot in question to her. Since the respondent authority had allotted the plots to various applicants after the draw of lots for the plots, the cause of action will arise on the date of allotment and in case a person claims, as in the case of the present petitioner, that he or she never received the allotment letter but came to know about the allotment from some other source, he or she must declare as to when and how she came to know so that the period of limitation could be counted from the date of that knowledge. Simply because she has failed to mention about it and has carefully avoided to do so, it would not make her cause of action continuous one. The District Forum gravely erred to this extent while dealing with the question of period of limitation. It is clear to us from mere perusal of the complaint that the petitioner has tried to cook up a story to justify the  delay but at the same time she has carefully chosen not to mention anything about the date of her knowledge with a view to avoid counting of the period of limitation from that date. Mere writing of letters to the respondent authority and waiting for reply for unduly long time would not extend the period of limitation. It is well settled position of law that the requirement of limitation under Section 24A (1) is a mandatory requirement and the consumer Fora shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years of date on which the cause of action has arisen. The District forum wrongly treated the cause of action in the present case as continuous one while entertaining the complaint which was prima-facie time barred. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the present revision petition and hence dismiss the same with the parties bearing their own costs.

      सदर प्रकरणात सुध्‍दा कलम 24(अ) ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा 1986 मध्‍ये नमूद असलेल्‍या मुदतीत दाखल करण्‍यात आलेली नाही.  तसेच, अर्जदाराने सदरहू प्रकरणात कोणताही विलंब माफीचा अर्ज मंचासमक्ष दिलेला नाही.  अर्जदाराने दाखल न्‍यायनिवाड्या मध्‍ये नमूद असलेले तथ्‍य सदर प्रकरणात लागू होत नाही, असे मंचाचे मत ठरले आहे.  सदरहू तक्रार दाखल करण्‍याचे प्रथम कारण दि.1.12.2012 रोजी घडले व त्‍यानंतर अर्जदार तर्फे दि.3.6.2015 ला वकीलामार्फत गैरअर्जदाराला नोटीस पाठविण्‍यात आले.  गैरअर्जदाराला नोटीस पाठवून तक्रार दाखल करण्‍याचे कारण सतत  सुरु आहे हे ग्राह्रय धरता येत नाही.  सबब, सदर तक्रार  या मंचासमक्ष दि.17.7.2015 रोजी दाखल करण्‍यात आले.  सदर तक्रार दाखल करण्‍याचे कारण घडल्‍यानंतर दोन वर्षाचे आंत दाखल करण्‍यात आली नाही, म्‍हणून मुद्दा क्र.2 चे उत्‍तर नकारार्थी नोंदविण्‍यात येते.