PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1260/2010 S.V. Hari Vs. The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner applied for allotment of site in the project floated by OP/respondent and deposited Rs.3,510/- on 29.9.1986 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.3.1989. Complainant waited for allotment of site. After lapse of so many years, complainant contacted OP in 2004 and came to know that site no. 425 measuring 50x 80was allotted to him on 25.2.2001 at the cost of Rs.3,03,000/- and he was directed to pay the remaining amount. In fact, complainant had not received any intimation regarding allotment of site. He made representation on 11.2.2005 and 29.5.2007, but with no result. After serving legal notice, complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that allotted site was cancelled due to non-payment. Further submitted that complaint was time barred and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal partly and directed respondent to refund amount deposited by petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. and further awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner filed revision against the order of the State Commission with a prayer that site may be allotted to him. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of intimation regarding allotment to the petitioner, OP had no right to cancel allotment and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal, partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and site may be allotted to him. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State Commission committed error in partly allowing appeal, as complaint was time barred, but as no revision petition has been filed by the respondent against the impugned order, prayed for dismissal of revision petition. 5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complaint was time barred. Admittedly, complainant applied for allotment in the year 1986 and made payment in 1986 and 1989 and plot was allotted to him by OP on 25.2.2001, which was cancelled on account of non-payment of balance money. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that intimation of allotment was sent by OP at the wrong address and in such circumstances, petitioner had no intimation of allotment so; could not deposit balance money and no response was given by OP on the representations made by petitioner vide letters dated 11.2.2005 and 29.5.2007 and cause of action continues; hence, complaint filed in the year 2009 is well within the limitation. This argument is devoid of force as complainant has placed copy of representation dated 29.5.2007 on record in which he has mentioned that when he visited the office of the respondent in the year 2004 to get refund of deposited amount, he was shocked to know about allotment of site and its cancellation. By this admission, it becomes clear that he came to know about allotment and cancellation of site in 2004. In the complaint petitioner has admitted that he moved an application on 12.6.1994 and requested OP to consider his application and after lapse of few days, he received letter of cancellation of allotment of site from OP. In representation dated 8.12.2004 made by the petitioner to OP, he has admitted that he visited OP office on 22.11.2004 for refund of money and came to know that his name was in the register of persons to whom refund was made. Thus, it becomes clear that in the year 2004, petitioner came to know that allotment of site has been cancelled and money was to be refunded to him. Merely by making representations in the years 2005 and 2007, limitation to file complaint does not extend and there is no question of continues cause of action. Learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation, but learned State Commission has committed error in partly allowing complaint treating recurring cause of action. 7. As complaint was barred by limitation, petitioner is not entitled to get allotment of site. As respondent has not filed revision petition against the impugned order, impugned order cannot be set aside; though, complaint is barred by limitation. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.