HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS,PRESIDENT

         This Revisional Application has been filed by the OP no. 3 of CC/334/2014 pending before Ld. DCDRF, South 24-Parganas at Baruipur questioning propriety of the order no. 50 dated 25-01-2018 passed by Ld. DCDRF concerned.

            Two applications being MA/165/2017 and MA/166/2017 were filed. The first one was filed by the complainant for substitution of legal heirs of deceased Developer, Goutam Roy which was allowed with observation that it was not barred by law of limitation. The second application being MA/166/2017 was filed by the OP no. 3, i.e. the revisionist herein, where she  challenged the maintainability of the Petition of  complaint case on the ground that the complaint was not filed within two years from the date of purchase of the flat. Ld. Trial Forum while disposing of the said application observed that the cause of action being a continuing one, it could not  be said that it was hit by the provisions of Section 24A of the Act.  On careful appreciation of the said order impugned  we are of the view that Ld. Trial Forum did not commit any mistake in passing the order , while disposing of both the petitions, as referred to earlier and accordingly we find no merit in the Revisional Application which is liable to be dismissed. Order is passed accordingly. In course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that the complainants were not ‘the consumers’ under his client i.e. revisionist/OP no. 3 of 333 of 2014. Since there is no such observation in the order impugned, we left the issue open and hope that the matter shall be decided by Ld. Trial Forum at the appropriate stage. The above order is passed exparte. We do not pass any order as to costs. To 14.9.2018 for appearance before ld. D.C.D.R.F. Baruipur.