Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan, President— Being aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry, dated 10.6.1998 passed in C. No. 10/98, the present revision petition is filed.

2. The District Forum raised two points for consideration. The first point considered being whether the complaint filed is time barred ? The first point alone was taken up for consideration by the District Forum. The Forum held that the complaint is barred by limitation and also held that the complaint had been filed long after the period of limitation prescribed by law.

3. In the present revision petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that originally the complaint was presented before the State Commission which was entertained, notice was ordered to the other side and at the stage of hearing the complainant restricted his total claim to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence the complaint was returned to the complainant to be presented before the District Forum. Thereafter the complaint was presented before the District Forum within the time prescribed. It has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that before the State Commission no objection as to limitation has been raised and the State Commission entertained the complaint as it was obviously satisfied that the complaint is not barred by limitation. Be that so, before the District Forum the respondents raised the plea of limitation which has been considered and the District Forum held that the complaint is barred by limitation.

4. On the plea of limitation the learned Counsel for the respondents refers to various dates and contended that the complaint is obviously barred by limitation on the said facts.

5. In the complaint various reliefs have been prayed for alleging deficiencies on the part of the respondents and one of them being that the respondents have not handed over the title deeds as well as the deed of conveyance. It is fairly admitted that even as on today the title deeds and conveyance deed have not been handed over to the complainant/revision petitioner. On the pleadings we have no doubt in our mind that three other portions of the reliefs also still survives and the deficiency complained persist and had not been complied with. The cause of action in the present case still survives as substantial portion of the reliefs prayed for is not barred by limitation. The District Forum had proceeded on the basis of the sale deed which was executed on 28.7.1993. It was presented for registration on 29.7.1993 and it has been registered only on 8.11.1995. There is no controversy on these factual. There is no quarrel over the proposition that Registration of the deed dates back to the date of execution and this position is conceded by both parties.

6. However, it is to be pointed out that in the present case the claim of the complainant still survives and it is not barred by limitation. A demand has been made for handing over the original documents and admittedly even as on the date or on the date of presentation of the complaint the same has not been handed over and it is so also part of the relief. It is also to be pointed out that the complaint relating to other deficiencies also is well within time.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondents points out that at least a portion of the claim is barred by limitation, as according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the complainant has been put in possession and the complaint had already passed on a full satisfaction letter and reckoned from it the complaint is barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel for respondents on the facts of this case. However, it is pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner that the deficiency had been noticed from the copy of the document handed over to him, which relates to reduction of total area and in respect of the rights agreed to be conveyed. This is known from the very copy of the title deed and hence the complaint is within time.

8. The