HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Revisionist.

2. This petition has been filed against the order No. 17 dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit II (Central) in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/33/2021 whereby the maintainability application filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 was rejected.

3. On perusal of the record it appears to us that the Complainant Sk. Majid Ali in the complaint petition has clearly and categorically stated that he and the Opposite Party No. 1 Nihar Ranjan Ghosh entered into an agreement and as per the agreement for sale executed between them the said Nihar Ranjan Ghosh promised to hand over the flat in question as per the agreement made in April, 2014. The Complainant has further clearly and categorically stated in the petition of complaint that the Complainant had paid Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh only) in between 24.07.2011 and 31.03.2014 for purchasing the said flat. But the said Nihar Ranjan Ghosh, the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to hand over the said flat to the Complainant within the stipulated time. The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party No. 1 but the Opposite Party No. 1 avoided the Complainant. In such a situation, the Complainant has filed the present petition of complaint praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To admit the complaint case and be pleased to issue notices to the opposite parties by showing caused to them as to why the prayer of the complainants shall not be allowed.

ii) To pass an order by directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant and the interest @ 18% p.a. on and from 14-04-2015 to till the date of actual payment of the complainant.

iii) To pass an order by directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant for causing physical and mental harassments of the complainant and the cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/-.

iv) To pass such further order or orders as this learned forum may deem fit and proper.”

4. So far as the prayer for directing the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh only) to the Complainant and the interest @ 18% p.a. on and from 14.04.2015 till the date of actual payment of the Complainant  is concerned it is of the nature of continuing wrong as provided under section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Samruddhi Co Operative Housing Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction 2022 SCC on line SC 35 held that in case of continuing the cause of action the limitation is not started unless the right is denied by the Opposite Party. In the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that the order passed by the District Commission is legal and valid.

6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of his argument has relied on the following five judgments namely (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 425, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 121, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 53 and (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 712. However, reliance of these five judgments in the adjudication of the revisional application, facts being at variance would be misplaced.

7. Under these facts and circumstances we hold that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission.

8. In view of the matter we hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the revisional application is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.

10. Learned District Commission below is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.

12. Office to comply.