Orders on Maintainability and on

                               Point of limitation.

The present complaint is filed on 19.03.2019 seeking direction to get registered site in any of the layout firmed by the Op.1 in favour of the complainant and alternatively prays to direct the Op to refund the deposit amount of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 15.07.2005. Hence paid the first installment of Rs.4,000/- on 14.08.1991, Rs.100/- on 10.03.1992, Rs.4,000/- 14.10.1992, Rs.4,000/- 17.01.1994,  Rs.37,900/- 15.04.1997, Rs.100/- on 11.12.1998, Rs.1,77,100/- 23.03.2005 and last payment of Rs.7,200/- on 15.07.2005. After going through the complaint it clearly reveals that the cause of action has arisen on 14.08.1991 and also on 15.07.2005 i.e., from the date on which the last payment was made. From that day onwards, complaint has to be filed within 2 years as per the 24 A of C.P. Act.   Hence no prime facie case made to admit the same.  Correspondence between the parties after expiry of stipulated period do not give raise to fresh cause of action.  Mere sending notice does not give rise to fresh cause of action and mere submission of legal notice or representation to competent authority does not arrest time as held in Jet Airways India Ltd., Vs. Satyaprakash Bansal, Chhattisgarh State Commission Dispute Redressal commission IV (2017) CPJ 19B (CN) (Chha).,

 The complainant has come up with this complaint 13 years after the last payment made to the Op. The complainant has not filed any application U/s 24 A of C.P. Act for condoning the delay. That being, so we have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that the complaint filed is barred by limitation u/s 24 C.P. Act.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural industries in Civil Apeal No.2067 of 2002 rendered judgment on 20 March, 2009., has held the same. In view of this the complaint cannot be admitted on the ground of limitation.  Hence complaint is hereby dismissed.