We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 

2.         Mr. Sudhir Pal Singh, Advocate holding for main counsel, Mr. Satish Pachori, submits that he is unable to attend and, therefore, he seeks adjournment.  The request is rejected. 

3.         We have considered the impugned order.  The petitioner did not join HDFC in the original complaint proceedings of case No. 84 of 2005.  The petitioner had purchased 350 units of the respondent on 04.01.93 at the price of Rs. 100/- each.   The units were pledged with the HDFC, against loan borrowed by the petitioner.  The petitioner was required to pay the amount to the HDFC.  It was alleged that the payments were required to be made to the HDFC due to default committed by the respondent as the accounts were not furnished.  The complaint was partly allowed by the District forum. The Appeal No. 319/2008 was preferred by the respondent. That appeal was allowed by the State Commission, Gujarat.

4.    The State Commission noticed that cause of action arose somewhere in the year 1997 when the alleged deficiency in service was noticed, but the complaint was filed in the year 2005 and, therefore, it was hopelessly barred by limitation.  The State Commission also noticed that in absence of the HDFC, the issue regarding negligence or deficiency in service committed by the respondent could not have been adjudicated and, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of necessary parties.    The State Commission also noticed that when there was Tri-party agreement in respect of pledging of units to the HDFC, the petitioner was required to approach the HDFC and should have made representation to the respondent regarding the deficiency in service.  The HDFC released Rs. 45,000/-, being price of the units, and accounted for the same in the loan account. Considering the reasons assigned by the State Commission, and particularly, in view of the bar of limitation and non-joinder of necessary party, i.e. HDFC, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission.  The petition, is therefore, dismissed.