Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs.Archana Pise, Advocate present for the appellant. She files Vakalatnama with ‘no objection’ of previous Advocate, taken on record. Mr.V.B. Nashikkar, Advocate present for the respondent. 2. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/12/2004 passed in consumer complaint No.81/2003, (Sau.Kusum Surendralal Tiwari V/s. M/s.Rathi Builder Pvt. Ltd.), passed by District Forum, Nashik. 3. It was the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant/org. opponent-M/s.Rathi Builder Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘builder’) for not executing conveyance in favour of respondent/original complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) of her shop, possession of which delivered to her on 05/09/1986. It is also alleged that expenses of the conveyance is also paid by the complainant to the builder. The District Forum upholding contention of the complainant directed the builder to execute the conveyance at the cost of complainant after adjusting `5,000/- paid earlier and also imposed costs of `1,000/- on the builder. Feeling aggrieved thereby the builder preferred this appeal. 4. At the beginning, an application was made on behalf of the builder for adjournment on the ground that talks of settlement out of Commission were going on. Said application is opposed by the respondent stating that no such talks were at all going on. Under the circumstance, we reject said application for adjournment. 5. We heard both the parties on merit. The only ground pressed before us on behalf of appellant/builder is about limitation. According to the appellant/builder, shop was agreed to be sold on 02/05/1986 and possession was also delivered to the complainant on 05/09/1986 and thereafter, complainant was sitting idle and did not file the complaint within two years and thus, the consumer complaint filed is barred by limitation. This issue was raised before the District Forum and the District Forum rightly held that cause of action in the instant case since the builder failed to execute conveyance is continuous one, the complaint cannot be termed as ‘time-barred’. We are in full agreement with the District Forum on this point. 6. The only point of limitation which is pressed before us by the appellant is thus, devoid of any substance. Hence, finding the appeal without any merit, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. Appellant to bear their own costs and shall pay `10,000/- as costs to the respondent/org. complainant. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 24th August 2012. | 
