I have heard Ms. Pandey on admission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his complaint by the District forum has rightly held the respondent not to be deficient in service in filing complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and in not withdrawing it despite payment of the bounced cheque having been made; in proceeding against the petitioner under the Securitization Act for recovery of the due loan amount; in delay in informing the petitioner of one time settlement scheme, it has further rightly held that the complaint was barred by limitation. There is no illegality or jurisdictional  error  in  the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.