Arguments heard on respondent's preliminary objections regarding lack of jurisdiction and petitioner's claim being barred by time.
Leaving aside respondent's objection on the jurisdiction of court, petitioner's claim is liable to dismissal the same being badly barred by time as admittedly the impugned transaction was entered into in March 1999, but the petitioner slept on his rights for more than a decade and suddenly woke up from slumber to file this claim. It is interesting to note that the petitioner after an inordinate delay of 11 years, at once thought to issue legal notice on 12.4.10 perhaps to claim that cause of action accrued with the refusal of respondent whereas cause of action, in this case, appears to have arisen with respondent's refusal to admit petitioner's rights and not from non- responding to petitioner's legal notice. Needless to say that law helps the vigilant and not indolent as the present petitioner.
2. For what has been discussed above, petitioner's claim merits dismissal the same being badly barred by time, therefore, the petition is dismissed. As the petitioner agitated a badly time barred claim, therefore, he is burdened with cost of Rs.2000/-. After due completion, file be consigned to record room. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.