K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—We have heard Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Adv. for the complainant on admission.

2. Complainant filed OP No. 3 of 2007, OP No.49 of 2007 and has now filed this OP No.116 of 2007. For passing this order the averments made in three complaints need not be referred to in detail. OP No. 3 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn giving certain liberty to the complainant by the order dated 19.3.2007. O.P. No.49 of 2007 filed thereafter was dismissed by the order dated 18.7.2007, the operative portion whereof reads thus:

“On instructions from the complainant Ms Jyoti states that complaint may be dismissed as withdrawn. Dismissed as such.”

3. Present complaint has been filed on 16.11.2007. Copies of said OP Nos. 3 of 2007 and 49 of 2007 have been filed on 18.1.2008. Bare perusal of the three complaints would show that the cause of action thereof is substantially the same. Payers made therein is for giving direction to the opposite party to give flat(s) in Janpath Lane Project. That being the position and the said order dated 18.7.2007, the complainant is estopped from filing the present petition. It is an abuse of process of law. Complaint is therefore dismissed as