Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/ Respondent in this case became a member of the Petitioner’s housing society on 25.04.1984 and thereafter paid two installments of Rs.2500/- each on 29.04.1984 and 01.05.1984 towards the allotment of a plot in her favour. When she found that no plot was allotted to her she contacted the Petitioner – Society on several occasions to expedite the allotment of the plot. She was told that the lay out plan had not yet been approved and that she will be informed as soon as the plots are ready for allotments. The complainant/ respondent kept in touch with the Petitioner – Society, but after waiting for a considerable time, vide letter dated 09.06.2004, she again requested the then Chairman of the Petitioner – Society to allot a plot. She was informed that work of allotment of plot was in progress, but even then, no plot was allotted to her. Under the Right to Information, the complainant/ Respondent obtained the Audit Reports of the Society for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 and 01.05.2005 to 31.03.2006 and discovered from there that Members who had joined the Society after her had been allotted plots. Complainant/ Respondent therefore, issued a legal notice on 23.07.2006 and thereafter preferred a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. The relief sought by the complainant/ Respondent included allotment of a plot to her, award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards unfair trade practice and Rs.30,000/- towards mental harassment suffered by her. The Petitioner challenged the contention of the Complainant/ Respondent on the grounds that she was not allotted a plot in her turn because, she had failed to submit an affidavit to the effect that neither she, nor her husband or her children have any other house or plot in the State. Petitioner has further stated that the amount deposited by the complainant/ Respondent is available with the Petitioner and if she is in hurry, she can take back the amount with interest. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to allot a plot to the complainant on payment of the present price of the plot. Petitioner was also directed to pay cost assessed at Rs.700/- Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the complainant/ Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal of the complainant/ Respndent and passed the following order: “….. the order of the District Forum deserves to be modified. It is directed that the OP shall allot the plot in favour of the complainant at the same rate as has been paid by other members detailed in Audit Report 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 31.05.2006. Besides this, the OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- towards cost of proceedings”. Aggrieved with the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner – Society has filed the present revision petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner appeared today. He contended that the reasons for the complainant/ Respondent not being allotted the plot, while some others who joined after her had been given their allotment, was, because, the complainant/ Respondent did not supply the necessary affidavit certifying that neither she nor her immediate family members owned a house or plot in the State. Therefore, it was the fault of the complainant/ Respondent that she was not allotted the plot. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also pointed out that while the cause of action arose in 1984, the Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum only on 04.10.2006 i.e. after several years. Therefore, this case is barred by limitation and may be dismissed. It is noted from the evidence on record that the Petitioner never informed the complainant that the reasons for not allotting the plot to her was because of her failure to submit the affidavit. On the other hand, it is in evidence that every time she approached the Petitioner she was told that the delay in allotment of a plot to her was because lay out plans were not ready. Thus, the Petitioner’s plea that it was complainant’s failure to provide the affidavit which resulted in non-allotment of a plot to her is not tenable. The contention of the Petitioner that the case is barred by limitation is also not acceptable because right from 1984, the complainant/ Respondent had been regularly taking up the matter for allotment of the plot with the Petitioner including with the President of the Petitioner – Society. It was only when all efforts failed that she took recourse to legal action. In view of these facts, we feel that no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed.