1. We find the office is really without any substance or tenability as pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for writ petitioners, therefore, we have taken up the writ petition itself for preliminary hearing.

2. We have heard Sri.G.R. Andanimath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. Sri. Andanimath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal is a very laconic order that it does not spell out any reason nor as it dealt with the various contentions raised by the petitioners before the State Commission, particularly the legal contentions such as the principles of res-judicata, which is a principle statutorily incorporated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not applicable to the proceedings before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint No.585/07 before it. Further, that the appeal to the State Commission was also dismissed without going into the merits and not even adverting to the contentions raised in the appeal and therefore, the order is bad in law and also submitted that the other contention of limitation which is put against the petitioners before the State Commission and District forum are also not very correct in law particularly as in a special enactment like the present Act, which does not prescribe a period of limitation, it could not have been pressed against the petitioners – complainants to the detriment of the complainant.

4. We have perused the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. Complaint itself was against certain earlier auction taken by the bank in course of recovery of the amounts advanced to the complainant’s father during his life time and for recovery of such amount which had been advanced for purchasing a tractor and for non-payment of such amount, the bank has high handedly seized the tractor and auctioned the same without prior notice, etc., this would vitiate such action and therefore, the amount recovered by the father of the petitioner was not justified and for compensation in respect of illegal action by the Bank, a complaint lodged before the Consumer Forum.

5. The Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint particularly holding that the principles of res-judicata and the period of limitation operated against the complainants.

6. We find on facts that the events in respect of which the complaint had been lodged by the petitioner-complainant was one that took place in the year 19.03.1999, the bank had seized the tractor and sold it in auction, held on 28.3.2000 for Rs.73,500/-and the complainants-legal representatives of the original borrower had filed a complaint earlier in No.64/06 and that had come to be dismissed as per the order dated 28.11.06 and that had become final.

7. It is, thereafter, yet another complaint was brought before the District Forum in complaint No.585/07 and dismissal of this complaint had given cause for filing of Appeal No.1387/08 before the State Commission and this appeal also being dismissed, the present writ petition.

8. The District Forum had occasion to examine the very complaint lodged earlier and had dismissed it on merits.

9. Sri. Andanimath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge that the complainants had come across of set of new facts as against the Bank and that gave a fresh cause to file another complaint. We are not impressed by the submission.

10. A complaint urging or alleging the respondent playing fraud is not a matter free from doubt as to whether a specialized forum like Consumer Forum is meant only for causes in the nature of deficiency of service.

11. Be that as it may, when once the District Forum had examined the very complaint and had found no merit in that complaint and dismissed the same and the complainants allowed that to become final; bringing a like cause in the second round and that being