S. A. Kader, J. - The brief case of the Complainant are these: The first Opposite Party is having an Industrial Estate at Madurai. Unit No. BS 2 was previously allotted to one Mr. Thyagarajan and he committed the default in the payment of rent. The second Opposite Party agreed to allot the said Unit BS2 on outright purchase to the Complainant if he pays the cost of the land and building and the arrears due from the previous allottee, Thyagarajan. The Complainant paid the cost of land and building of Rs. 2,84,387 but did not pay the arrears due from the previous allottee. Hence the Unit was not allotted to the Complainant. However, the Complainant took possession of Unit AS2 which had been allotted to one Mrs. Meenakshi Ammal, wife of Thyagarajan, aforesaid. She was also in arrears in respect of Unit AS2. Subsequently, the first Opposite Party agreed to sell AS2 to the Complainant if he pays the cost of site and building and all the arrears due from the previous allottee Meenakshi Ammal. Accordingly the Complainant paid the cost of site and the building of Unit AS2 after deducting the cost already paid for Unit BS2. This unit was also not allotted to the Complainant, because he did not pay the arrears of rent due to the previous allottee, Meenakshi Ammal. The Complainant has now come forward with this petition directing the Opposite Parties to execute the Deed of Sale in respect of Unit AS2 and for damages.

2. The complaint is resisted by both the Opposite Parties and all the allegations made by the Complainant are denied. In brief the contention of the Opposite parties is that, they agreed to allot first Unit BS2 and next Unit AS2 to the Complainant out of turn, provided, he paiys not only the cost of building and site, but also the arrears due from the previous allottees. Since the Complainant did not pay the arrears, the unit was not allotted. It is also pointed out that the Complainant filed W.P./8052/85 in the High Court, Madras directing Opposite Parties to handover possession of the Unit BS2, but it was dismissed.

It is also further pointed out that the Complainant has filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai in O.S. 360/89 in respect of this matter and the same is pending.

3. In view of the pendency of the O.S. 360/89 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, the question whether this, complaint is maintainable, is taken up for-consideration as a preliminary point.

4. Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, where the subject matter of the complaint is already pending before the Civil Court, it is not desirable for the Commission constituted under this Act to deal with the matter. This is necessary for the purpose of avoiding conflict of decisions. In M/s. Special Machines. Karnal v. Punjab National Bank the Hon'ble President Thiru Balakrishna Eradi, J. speaking for the Commission observed thus:

"........as a matter of policy and principle, where the subject matter of a complaint is sub-judice before the ordinary Civil Court, a concurrent adjudication in respect of the same will not be conducted by this Commission under the Act. The objection is not really on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but is one based on considerations of property and prudence, keeping in view the necessity for avoidance of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. "

5. The subject matter of this complaint is that the Opposite Parties have failed to execute the Deed of Sale, in respect of Unit AS2 for which he has paid the entire consideration being the value of the site and the building. According to the opposite parties this was agreed to be allotted to the Complainant, out of turn on the condition that he must pay not only the value of the site and the building, but also the arrears due from the previous allottee. The suit was filed in O.S. 360/89 on the