When the subject matter of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is sub judice before a Civil Court, the District Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—By this appeal under Sec-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) (“the Act” herein) the opposite parties-appellants question legality and correctness of the order dt. 14-6-89 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint Case No. 12/89. In view of the short point involved in this appeal it is not necessary to recount the facts in detail. Suffice it to state, that the complainant filed a complaint purporting to be under Sec. 12 of the Act dated 17-1-89 against the opposite parties-appellants. The complainant has prayed that the opposite-parties may be restrained from realising improper cost of the allotted House No. 1 Ta-24 Sector 5 Udaipur, Hiran Magri and that the opposite-parties may be directed to remove the deficiencies in the house and to issue a possession letter. The opposite-parties contested the complaint on various grounds by filing the version of the case dated 14-3-89. Besides raising the objection of jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint, in the additional pleas it was submitted by the opposite-parties the complainant has filed a suit in respect of the house in question in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur for permanent injunction which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2 Udaipur, The suit was registered as Suit No. 100/88. The complainant (Plantiff in the suit) also submitted an application for temporary injunction under Order XXX-IX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. which was registered as Application No. 43/88. This application was rejected on 4-1-89. A rejoinder was filed by the complainant. The fact of instituting the suit was admitted. It was however, submitted that the institution of the suit by the complainant prior to the establishment of the District Forums under the Act does not preclude the complainant from pursuing his remedies under the Act. The District Forum, Udaipur tried the complaint and granted reliefs to the complainant by its order dt. 14-6-89. The District Forums observed:—

(Hindi Matter Committed.)

Being aggrieved the opposite parties have filed this appeal as aforesaid. We have heard Mr. Arjun Lai Tolani, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Subhash Saxena, Advocate for the respondent and Mr. Shyam Lal Somani respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the suit instituted by the complainant-respondent in respect of the house in question for permanent prohibitory injunction is still pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur and as the subject matter of the complainant was/is subjudice before a Civil Court, the District Forum should not have exercised its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted Photostat copy of the order-sheet dt. 30-5-89 passed in the suit instituted by the complainant which is as under:

(Hindi Matter ommitted.)

Photostat copy of the plaint dt. 31.10.89 has also been submitted for our perusal. The reliefs claimed by the complainant (plaintiff in the suit) are contained in para 24 of the plaint. We have carefully considered the complaint and the suit instituted by the complainant which is still pending before the Civil Court. The subject matter of both (suit and the complaint) is the house in question and the reliefs claimed in the complaint are substantially the same which have been claimed in the plaint instituted by the complainant against the opposite-parties. The argument of Mr. Subhash Saxana, learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent that as the District Forum was established after the institution of the suit and the complaint filed by the complainant satisfies the ingredients of the complaint as defined in the Act and the reliefs claimed by the complainant can be granted under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. There is no bar in regard to the maintainability of the suit. In support of this he invited our attention to Sec. 3 of the Act which says that the