APHC010247712011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2979 of 2011 Bench Sr.No:-17 [3446] Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd ...Petitioner Vs. AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A S C Bose Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : GP for Civil Supplies for R.1 & R.2, Mr. N Aswartha Narayana for R.3 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 30th October, 2025 P C : The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 21.06.2010, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum condoning the delay has been dismissed. 2. The State Commission by the order impugned, while upholding the order of the District Forum, kept the issue of limitation open and permitted the revision petitioner – petitioner herein to take such a plea in the counter to 2 HCJ & RRR, J WP_2979_2011 be filed before the District Forum in the main case and that the order passed by the District Forum condoning the delay will not be a bar before the District Forum. Reliance was placed upon an order passed by the National Commission in the case of District Cooperative Central Bank & another v. Shri B R Chandrakar [RP.No.1184 of 2006] wherein, in regard to deposits, it was held that the cause of action was continuous and therefore, the issue of limitation would not arise. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum could not have entertained the complaint unless it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. It is stated that Clause (1) of Section 24A should have been adhered to inasmuch as Section 24A(2) could be invoked only if the complainant satisfies the District Forum that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the said period. In the present case, it is stated that the complainant had not established sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period under Section 24A(1). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 HCJ & RRR, J WP_2979_2011 5. We are of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the condonation of delay application came to be allowed by the District Forum, by virtue of the order impugned, the issue with regard to limitation has been kept open. Therefore, it will still be open to the petitioner herein to urge before the District Forum as to whether the cause of action was continuous or not. 6. Be that as it may, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The Writ Petition is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Vjl