Complaint not filed before proper forum hence held not entertainable.

The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:

“To issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, prohibiting the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madras, the second respondent herein from proceeding with O.P. No.1223 of 1993 of the first respondent herein.”

2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affida- vit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is one of the senior members of the Tiruppattur Bar. According to him, the first respondent herein has preferred a complaint in O.P. No.1223 of 1993 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madras, the second respondent herein, under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read with Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 against the petitioner claiming Rs.4,375.75 and Rs.21,612.35 on the alleged ground that he failed and neglected to discharge his professional duties in filing a suit on behalf of the 1st respondent herein and he has not diligently conducted R.E.P. No.265 of 1991 in O.S. No.4458 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruppattur, North Arcot, Ambedhkar District. It is further averred that the very complaint itself is false and the first respondent has chosen to prefer the complaint only for the purpose of teasing and annoying the petitioner for incorrect and inappropriate reasons.

3. It is averred in the affidavit that the first respondent is not entitled to seek any relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the first respondent will neither be a consumer nor the above O.P. No.1223 of 1993 will be a complaint, in respect of consumer dispute or the subject-matter regarding defect or deficiency regarding service under Sec.2 of the said Act. The members of the legal profession are fully controlled and governed by the Advocates Act within the jurisdiction of the respective Bar Councils of the States and the All India Bar Council in each and every professional transaction between the members of the bar and their clients. That being so, the first respondent is neither entitled to claim any relief against the petitioner under under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is competent to entertain or enquire into the above said O.P. No.1223 of 1993. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madras has no jurisdiction, particularly with the consumer dispute, which, if at all, could be agitated only before the District Forum of North Arcot Ambedkar District, where the cause of action is alleged to have taken place within Tiruppattur, North Arcot Ambedkar district. Hence, the Madras District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction or Authority or power to enquire into the said complaint. With these averments, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the District Consumer Forum at Madras from proceeding with O.P. No.1223 of 1993.

4. The first respondent herein filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He has also averred in the counter that the issue of jurisdiction can be decided by the District Forum after considering the cause of action of the complaint. The District Forum only after considering the issues on merits can decide the jurisdiction issue. Therefore, on this score the writ cannot be maintained. It is also contended that the petitioner had filed his version and the case was posted for filing proof of affidavit and documents and at that stage, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition. With these averments the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have heard Mr.R.M. Krishna Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

6. Mr.R.M. Krishna Raju, learned counsel appeari