PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1. Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Both the parties entered into two agreements dated 24.06.1996. Arcanjo Bonifacio Pereira, the complainant agreed to purchase from OP-Edmund Gomes, a shop and a garage for a sum of Rs. 1,89,650/- and Rs. 1,16,520/- respectively. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1.75 lacs. The said shop and garage were to be constructed and delivered to the complainant within 24 months. But prior to construction of those premises, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.01.1998 to the OP, calling upon the OP to return the amount in the sum of Rs.1,75,000/- together with interest @ 18% within a period of 30 days. The OP replied to the notice that the notice was pre-mature. -1-

2. We find some force in this contention in a measure. This question is being kept open and will be considered by the District Forum. The District Forum will also consider to how much interest the complainant is entitled. The question that how much amount is to be forfeited for the pre-mature demand, will be considered by the District Forum.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint. However, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the case was barred vide Section 24 (A) of the C.P. Act and cited various authorities reported in and SBI vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, AIR 2009 SC 2210 [LQ/SC/2009/619 ;] M/s Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd., vs. Bijoy Kumar Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1210 [LQ/SC/2002/291] .

4. However, we are of the considered view that this is a continuous cause of action. Our attention is invited towards the fact that the petitioner has demanded the amount only but he has not asked for possession. Whatever the case may be, we cannot allow the OP to grab the amount, already paid by the complainant. At the most, the complainant can be burdened with some penalty for asking the pre-mature amount. This is a continuous case of action as we have already held in the case of Raghava Estates Ltd. Vs. VishnupuramColony Welfare Association in Revision and SLP filed before the Apex Court, was dismissed in the same case in Petition No. 3097 of 2012 Civil Appeal No. 35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012.

5. Counsel for the OP has also invited our attention towards the fact that he is the power of attorney/simpliciter and four other persons are also involved, they ought to have been held liable for the same. This point has also got some force. We give the complainant the liberty to implead those four persons for whom the OP is working as power of attorney.

6. With these conclusions, we remand the case to the District Forum. All the contentions are being kept open. The District Forum will decide the case as per Law and decide the case expeditiously, within a period of six months from today. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 05.11.2014.

7. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. ......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER