No. 5/05.06.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. Prabir Basu, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. N. R. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Heard Mr. Basu in respect of the revision who contends that the Forum below acted wrongly in holding that the case is maintainable on the question of limitation.  It is contended by Mr. Basu that the proceeding before the Forum was filed long after two years from either date of possession or from the date of registration of the Deed of Conveyance.  In support of the contention Mr. Basu relied on judgement in the case of Pushpa Pathania – vs. – The Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota reported in I (1995) CPJ 150 (NC), Pushpa Builders Flat Buyers Assn. – vs. – Pushpa Builders Ltd. reported in II (2002) CPJ 83 (NC) and V. Muthukrishnan & Ors. – vs. – K. Ponnuswamy & Ors. reported in 2002 (1) CPR 181 (NC) and contends that in above view of law and the facts of the case as stated hereinabove the revision should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

Mr. Mukherjee in support of the impugned order contended that the Complainant filed the proceeding with specific contention as regards the date of cause of action and the same is only consideration for deciding limitation, according to Mr. Mukherjee.  In support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee places the provision of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act and the law decided in Pushpa Pathania (supra).

Considering the respective contentions and the facts of the present case we are also of the view that the limitation is to be calculated from the date of cause of action and in such circumstances the possession and the registration of the deed of conveyance are not the only criteria and the Forum is required to look into the facts of the particular case as regards cause of action.  In the present case the nature of complaint is such that, in our opinion, the question of limitation and the maintainability can be decided only after evidences are recorded by both parties.  It goes without saying that if after evidence it is found that complaint was filed long after the cause of action arise, the complaint has to be held not maintainable and in case of contrary finding on facts the result will be inevitably otherwise.  In the circumstances we dispose of the present revision case with only observation that question of limitation and maintainability of the proceeding on that ground can be decided after evidences are recorded and, therefore, the same should be decided at the time of final hearing of the case.  With the above direction making it clear that the proceeding as was held maintainable in the impugned order was at that stage and the matter can be considered after evidence as directed hereinabove.  Accordingly the revision petition is disposed of.