PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, he State Commission in Appeals No. 2236 & 2284/06 M.P. Housing Board Vs. Sudhir Mishra by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of the District Forum was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent applied for allotment of a house in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the petitioner and complainant was allotted a house. The complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in instalments and received possession of the house on 4.3.2000. The complainant noticed that there were a number of defects in the house as inferior material was used. The complainant filed a complaint for damages on account of delay in delivery of possession of the house as well as the price was charged more than the one advertised and house suffered with many defects. The petitioner-opposite party filed reply and denied all the allegations and further alleged that the complaint is barred by limitation, as the possession was given on 4.3.2000, whereas the complaint was filed on 24.10.2002, hence, the complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 16.2.2004 dismissed the complaint but order of the District forum was set aside by the State Commission vide its order dated 17.5.2006 and the matter was remitted back to the District Forum for afresh decision in accordance with law. The District Forum vide its order dated 25.9.2006 allowed the complaint partially and directed the petitioner-opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.34,600/- and to repair his stair case and roof of the house or pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.2,000/- as cost of the case. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 8.3.2010 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of Counsel appearance on 17.2.2011 and 21.7.2011 and notice was sent for today hearing i.e. 17.7.2012. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent is time barred as the complaint should have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, possession of the house was given to the complainant on 4.3.2000 and complaint was filed on 24.10.2002 i.e. after 2 years and 7 months. Complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years from the date of taking possession of the house. Neither learned District Forum nor learned State Commission has dealt with the issue of limitation, though, petitioner had raised this objection in its written statement and this issue was also decided in favour of the petitioner by the District Forum in its judgement dated 16.2.2004. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (2009) 5 SCC 121 State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) in which it was held that if complaint is barred by time and yet, the complaint is decided on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. In the present case, the complaint is clearly barred by limitation as possession was taken on 4.3.2000 and complaint was filed on 24.10.2002 that too without moving an application for condonation of delay. Learned State Commission and the District Forum have committed an error in not dealing the point of limitation, though, it was specifically taken by the petitioner in its reply. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the learned State Commission is set aside as the complaint is barred by limitation. There will be no order as to costs.