Limitation Period Countdown
· Pradeep Sonawane & Anr. v. Developer & Ors. · 18-02-2026 · NC/CC/13/2026 · J. A.P. Sahi (President), B. Pandaya (member) INTRODUCTION The most significant step towards successful admission of complaint is complance with limitation period. It is the first hurdle which has to be complied otherwise the pleadings would merely remain a stack of papers without legal consequence. The Hon’ble NCDRC on 18-02-2026 ruled out on an important topic of interpretation of limitation period in consumer complaint. FACTS OF MATTER 1. The Complainants booked an apartment thereby executing an Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred as ATS) dated 20-12-2013 with the Opposite Parties. The flat was to be delivered in 2014 as per agreement but the actual delivery took place on 31-08-2016. 2. The Complainants were residing abroad and rented out the flat. In year 2024, the Complainants took possession of the said flat. The Complainants alleged that the parking area allotted was inconvenient with an uncovered manhole. It was also alleged that based on suspicion the Complainants hired personal architect on 21-07-2025 and as per report of architect dated 28-08-2025, the carpet area of the flat was alleged to be 99sq.ft. short compare to the promised area as per ATS. 3. The Complainant filed the present complaint before NCDRC alleging multiple defects including herein stated above. The Complainants mentioned that as the architect report was prepared on 28-08-2025 and possession was taken of year 2024 the limitation period as per statues stands satisfied and the complaint is maintainable in this regard. Submission on behalf of Complainants 1. That the present complaint is maintainable as the knowledge of the defects were discovered in year 2025 only. The precedent cited in complaint was Hon'ble Kerala High Court at Ernakuiam in “RFA No. 79 of 2013 (V.Chandran versus Aiiamma George and Others)” where it was held that when the breach is a continuing one, limitation began to run from the date on which the breach ceased, and Section 22 of Limitation Act is relied upon stating that every moment the breach is continued, a fresh period of limitation commenced, and limitation would begin to run from the date of cessation of the breach. 2. That the complainants also submit that obligation of Opposite Parties arose on 22-05-2025 i.e date of legal notice of the complainants to the builder. 3. That the Complainants to conclude submitted that the cause of action is a continuous and it afresh everyday spent till it cease to exist. Analysis by NCDRC The NCDRC took strict view against the complaint being filed after 10 years of actual possession letter sent by the Opposite Parties. The analysis regarding when does the limitation starts are as follow: a) The ATS was executed in 2013 followed by possession being taken in year 2016. The admission of complainants that they had rented out the said flat is evident enough to conclude that possession was indeed taken. It is also the admission of complainants that they started using the flat for living only in year 2024 whereas the present complaint is filed in year 2026. Further, it was admitted that the Complainants were looking forward to purchase a luxury car which would not fit under the allotted parking area. b) The ATS executed between parties provides a window of three years to file report to the Developers herein Opposite Parties informing about the defects regarding flats, parking lot etc.. not as per promised under ATS. The Complainants not being proactive regarding the defects chose to stay silent for over 10 years. c) The claim of continuous cause of action would not sustain as for cause of action to be a continuous one it had to be persists overtime rather than occurring at one time i.e in the present case, the alleged deficiencies arose from a single event delivery of possession which occurred in 2016.The provision envisaged in section 69 of the CPA,2019 clearly states that tribunal has to be satisfied in matter where claim of falling within limitation period is pleaded. It is the duty of complainant to satisfy the tribunal regarding compliance with the provisions of CPA,2019. d) As per judgment of Apex Court in “SBI v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC” the Apex Court held that the limitation provision envisaged in CPA,1986 was peremptory in nature and required the consumer forum to be satisfied that the complaint is within limitation period or delay, if any, must be condone after the satisfaction that delay occurred due to genuine reasons. Judgment The complaint was held barred by limitation period as cause of action arose way back in 2016 when the Complainant took possession of the said flat. Key Takeaways 1. Continuous cause of action would only arise when the legal injury is said to exist everyday regardless of incident occurring date. 2. The ATS, if any, provide specific timelines which are not in derogation but in addition to the existing laws the filing of complaint beyond that period would not be entertain in any circumstances unless until the reason for delay is persuasive & compelling. 3. The pleadings are admissions and once you wrote something in pleading you cannot claim it to be wrong hence pleadings must be drafted carefully it’s not about fancy words in English it’s about what to admit & what to leave for consideration. Conclusion The statements made in pleadings are admitted facts hence it is significant to choose what to disclose. The complaint herein was dismissed based on admissions made in pleading. This judgment is evident that pleadings are the back bone of your litigation strategy and it must be drafted carefully rather than in fancy English.