ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 27 of 2002, whereby the District Forum has condoned the delay in filing the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the year 1989, the complainant applied for allotment of Type – I house under the self-financing scheme floated by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as “Parishad”) and deposited sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards registration fee. The estimated cost of the house was Rs. 2,68,000/-. The Parishad vide their registered letter dated 27.02.1992, informed the complainant that the price of the house has been enhanced to Rs. 3,21,000/- and 15 days’ time was given to the complainant to accept the proposal. The complainant accepted the proposal of the Parishad. On 03.09.1992, the Parishad issued a letter to the complainant stating therein that the construction work is in progress and hence the amount of each instalment has been enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 59,000/- and it was also stated that in case of default of payment of instalment in time, the Parishad will charge interest @18% p.a. The complainant paid five instalments from 18.12.1989 to 22.09.1993 including the registration fee and, thus, paid total sum of Rs. 3,21,000/- to the Parishad, but the house was not allotted to him. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Parishad, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Jabalpur, which was registered as consumer complaint No. 462 of 1993. The said consumer complaint was decided ex-parte against the Parishad by the District Forum, Jabalpur and an award of Rs. 3,21,000/- together with interest @18% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 31,000/- was passed in favour of the complainant and against the Parishad vide order dated 14.11.1994. Since the Parishad did not comply the order passed by the District Forum, Jabalpur and did not pay the award amount, hence the complainant filed an execution application in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun, wherein the Parishad appeared and sought time for filing an appeal against the order made by the District Forum, Jabalpur. Since the Parishad did not comply the order passed by the District Forum, Jabalpur and did not pay the award amount, hence the complainant filed an execution application in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun, wherein the Parishad appeared and sought time for filing an appeal against the order made by the District Forum, Jabalpur. However, on 06.04.1996, the Parishad moved an application before the District Forum, Jabalpur for setting aside the ex-parte order. The said application was dismissed by the District Forum with costs of Rs. 3,500/-. The Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun in the execution proceedings initiated by the complainant, directed the Parishad to pay the award amount till 18.12.1995, but the same was not paid. Thereafter, attachment proceedings were initiated against the Parishad vide order dated 06.06.1996. The Parishad filed an appeal before Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow against the order dated 06.06.1996 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun. At the time of admission of the appeal by the State Commission, Lucknow, the Bench comprising of Hon’ble President and Female Member vide order dated 28.08.1996, directed that the cheque of Rs. 4,02,855/- deposited by the Parishad in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun, be released in favour of the complainant and the recovery of the further amount was stayed. However, the Male Member of the State Commission per his dissenting order of the same date dismissed the appeal filed by the Parishad, as not maintainable. However, since two Members (Hon’ble President and Female Member) had admitted the appeal filed by the Parishad and hence it remained pending before the State Commission. Later on, the said appeal was converted by the State Commission into revision petition in the year 2000. The said revision petition was decided by the State Commission vide order dated 04.02.2000 and the revision petition was allowed and the execution proceedings initiated by the complainant at Dehradun were set aside. Against the order dated 04.02.2000, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, which was registered as revision petition No. 1153 of 2001 and the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 24.07.2001, dismissed the said revision petition. However, the complainant was given a liberty to file a consumer complaint at Dehradun or in any other Forum except Madhya Pradesh, if he so wishes. However, the complainant was given a liberty to file a consumer complaint at Dehradun or in any other Forum except Madhya Pradesh, if he so wishes. Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun on 25.02.2002, claiming balance amount of Rs. 1,76,383.10/- with interest @18% p.a. from 26.08.1996 till payment; Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony; Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 3. In the said consumer complaint, the complainant moved an application on 07.03.2002 for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint. 4. The Parishad filed objections against the application for condonation of delay and stated that the limitation for filing the consumer complaint had started running from the date of not giving the house to the complainant and that there is no sufficient cause or reason for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint. 5. The District Forum vide order dated 06.11.2008, allowed the application moved by the complainant for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint and condoned the delay in filing the consumer complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionists have filed this revision petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the case in hand, first of all, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Jabalpur bearing consumer complaint No. 462 of 1993, which was decided ex-parte against the Parishad vide order dated 14.11.1994 and the consumer complaint was allowed. The Parishad did not pay the award amount to the complainant and hence the execution proceedings were initiated by the complainant before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun, in which the Parishad turned up and sought time for depositing the amount, but did not do so and hence the Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun initiated attachment proceedings against the Parishad vide order dated 06.06.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, the Parishad preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Lucknow, which was later on converted into revision petition and the State Commission, Lucknow vide order dated 04.02.2000, allowed the revision petition and set aside the execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the Parishad preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Lucknow, which was later on converted into revision petition and the State Commission, Lucknow vide order dated 04.02.2000, allowed the revision petition and set aside the execution proceedings. Against the order dated 04.02.2000, the complainant preferred a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission bearing Revision Petition No. 1153 of 2001 and the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 24.07.2001, dismissed the said revision petition and a liberty was granted to the complainant that if he so wishes, he may file a consumer complaint at Dehradun or in any other Forum except Madhya Pradesh. Pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2001, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 8. Thus, from the facts narrated above, it is quite clear that there has been continuity in litigation between the parties right from the year 1993, when the complainant first filed a consumer complaint against the Parishad before the District Forum, Jabalpur. It is true that the said consumer complaint was decided ex-parte against the Parishad, but when the Parishad came to know about the said order, they ought to have challenged the same by filing an appeal against the said before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, but they did not do so. Rather, the Parishad challenged the order dated 06.06.1996 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, by filing an appeal against the said order. Before the Uttar Pradesh, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, the Parishad stated that they have deposited the cheque of Rs. 4,02,855/- deposited in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun and it was directed that the said cheque be released in favour of the complainant, which was probably received by the complainant, as he had filed the present consumer complaint only for balance of the amount with ancillary benefits. Later on, the said appeal was converted into revision petition. 9. Later on, the said appeal was converted into revision petition. 9. As has been stated above, the consumer complaint in question has been filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Dehradun in pursuance to the order dated 24.07.2001 made by the Hon’ble National Commission and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said that the complainant has abused the process of law or has indulged himself in wrong litigation or that he is not entitled to the benefit of litigation undergoing between the parties since the year 1993 or that the litigation was not bonafide. It is also important to mention here that the Parishad also did not take the appropriate and proper action in the matter and did not file any appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said that the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the District Forum was perfectly justified in condoning the delay in filing the consumer complaint. 10. Learned counsel for the Parishad cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Samuel Dawson Vs. Sivakami and others; AIR 1972 Supreme Court 730, wherein it was held that the proceedings contrary to a clearly expressed provision of law can not be regarded as proceeding in good faith. It was also held that a person who has resisted to the objection regarding non-joinder of parties at the initial stage and also at the revisional stage and run the risk of proceeding with the suit without impleading the necessary parties, can not be said to have acted in good faith and is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the case in hand, no inaction can be attributed to the complainant. He was rightly pursuing his remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he is very much entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of time bonafidely spent in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the above decision cited does not extend any help to the revisionists. 11. Learned counsel for respondent – complainant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Simran Roadlines Vs. Therefore, the above decision cited does not extend any help to the revisionists. 11. Learned counsel for respondent – complainant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Simran Roadlines Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another; 2007 (3) UC 1692 , wherein it was held that the time spent before Forum can be sought to be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J. Kumaradasan Nair and another Vs. IRIC Sohan and others; 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 258. In the said case, the appellants were pursuing the remedy in wrong Forum. It was held that the provisions of Sections 5 and 14 are meant for grant of relief where person has committed some mistake and that the provision is to be applied in broad based manner. Learned counsel also cited a decision of this Commission rendered in the case of Gurmeet Transport Company Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited; II (2008) CPJ 492, in which it was held that the period during which the complainant was prosecuting earlier complaint and consequential legal proceedings is to be excluded for computation of limitation. Learned counsel further cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Goa Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and another Vs. Franklin Noronha and another; III (2008) CPJ 12 (NC), wherein it was held that the exclusion of time spent in earlier proceedings is justified and the complaint was held not to be barred by limitation and was held as maintainable. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute; II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be taken for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the earlier proceedings. In the present case, the complainant was bonafidely prosecuting the earlier proceedings and, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 13. This apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. In the present case, the complainant was bonafidely prosecuting the earlier proceedings and, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 13. This apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited; II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) = IV (2011) SLT 303 = 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed that the revisional power can be exercised only if there is prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, the same may be set aside. Therefore, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Bhawnesh Kumar Taneja; IV (2011) CPJ 561 (NC), we are of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for any interference for exercising power under the revisional jurisdiction. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.