Order No. 32

Ld. Advocates for the parties are present.  IA/20/2017 is taken up for consideration.  Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

It is stated by the Ld. Advocate of the OPs that the complaint petition is for refund of interest allegedly charged in excess for the period before May, 2009; whereas, the instant case was filed in the year 2012.  Accordingly, the complaint case is barred by limitation.

On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, drawing our attention to paragraph no. 42 of the petition of complaint contended that the cause of action of the instant complaint case initially arose on 30-06-2006; thereafter, on diverse dates such as on 10-06-2008, 30-12-2008, 21-01-2009, 08-05-2009, 30-06-2009, 27-10-2010, 04-03-2011, 22-07-2011, 28-10-2011, and thereafter on 24-01-2012 and the same is continuing from day to day as the illegal practice of the OPs is still continuing and the dues of the Complainant is still being withheld illegally by the OPs. 

It appears from the petition of complaint that the dispute regarding arbitrary charging of interest through originated in the year 2006, when the loan was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant for the first time, the dispute in this regard is still continuing as the practice of arbitrary imposition of interest by the OPs is allegedly continuing unabated till date.  As such, we find no merit in the maintainability petition being moved by the OPs. The same is dismissed/rejected as such.  Fix 20-07-2018 for filing evidence by the Complainant.