IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/197/2026 (Against the Order dated 27.10.2025 in FA. No. 27/2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad)

WITH i) NC/IA/2337/2026(EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)

K. Siddivinayaka, S/o-K. Surya Prakash Rao, Aged about: - 49 Years, Occupation: - Private Employee, R/o- H. No. 5-3/2/90, Plot No. 141, Boddupal, Padmavathi Colony, Hyderabad- 500092 Petitioner (s)

Versus Managing Director, Swanrna Bharathi Developers (India) Pvt. Limited.

Address: - G1A & G1B, Nagasai Nivas, Prime Hospital Lane, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500038.

Present Address: - Sri. K. Rama Krishna Rao, The Managing Director, Swarna Bharathi Developers India Pvt, Ltd.

2nd Floor, Sri Seetha Ramaiah Towers, H. No. 8-4-369/F /101 to 512, New Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad- 500018 Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Advocate Dated : 06.03.2026

ORDER

1.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

2. The challenge is to the order dated 27.10.2025 of the State Commission vide which first appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed on account of limitation. In the present case, the complainant (petitioner herein) paid two amounts i.e. Rs.75,000/- on 05.04.2013 and another Rs.75,000/- on 15.07.2013. Hence, the State Commission observed that the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 14.07.2015, but the complaint was filed 06.09.2019 and hence, it was time barred.

The petitioner herein, on the other hand, contends that it is a continuous cause of action and hence, there is no delay in filing the complaint.

3. Except for the two receipts of payments, there are no other documents evidencing the transaction either in the form of an allotment letter or any agreement to sell etc. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to undated complaint letters to the police, but these are not relevant to decide as to when the cause of action in favour of complainant has arisen. The OP (the respondent herein), in their written version, specifically raised two contentions, one related to limitation and the other that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no relationship of service provider between the parties and hence the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. In the absence of any document, like allotment letter or agreement, which would show whether any housing services were promised, we see merit in the contentions of the respondent herein in their written version.

4. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the State Commission on following grounds:

(a) The order of the District Commission dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation, and confirmed by the State Commission, is contrary to law and has been passed by erroneously exercising jurisdiction.

(b) The Commission below should have seen that the complaint relates to specific performance of the contract. A suit can be filed within three years from the date of refusal to register the sale deed. In the absence of any refusal by the Opposite Party, particularly in the absence of evidence to that effect, it should have been held that there is a continuous cause of action and that the complaint is not barred by limitation.

(c) The Commissions below should have also seen that in transactions relating to immovable property, time is normally not treated as the essence of the contract unless the contrary is proved. There is nothing contrary to such presumption and no evidence whatsoever has been placed by the Opposite Party.

(d) The Commissions should have also seen that the matter is not merely the sale of a plot but is coupled with development of the plot, which resulted in deficiency of service. In the absence of any development of the land/plot, the cause of action is a continuous one and the complaint should have been held to be filed within time.

(e) The Commission shoul