Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2006 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby application filed by the respondent under Section 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed and the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1442/- against the respondent-defendant. After notice, the respondent-defendant appeared and moved an application under Section 11 read with Section 151 CPC wherein it was averred that suit is barred by principle of res judicata because the issue involved had already been adjudicated on merit by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “CP Act”). The petitioner-plaintiff contested the application on the ground that although his complaint stands dismissed by the Consumer Fora but it does not bar the jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit for recovery. The Commission under the CP Act is quasi-judicial authority and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. Section 3 of the CP Act specifically provides that the provisions of CP Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for time being in force. The trial Court ultimately, accepted the application of the respondent and dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide the impugned order (Annexure P/5). Hence, this revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The following important question arises for determination in this petition:-

“Whether civil suit filed by a person is barred by principle of res judicata, when his complaint under the provisions of CP Act, 1986 for the same relief and on the same cause of action, has been dismissed?

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no such bar. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings under the CP Act. Section 3 of the CP Act specifically states that the remedy under the CP Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Section 3 of the CP Act reads as under:-

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law - The provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be deemed to have been excluded in respect of the suit of a person who has earlier approached the Consumer Fora for the same relief under the provisions of CP Act and the principle of res judicata will not apply. The proceedings before the Consumer Fora are summary in nature, as such, cannot be treated as a judgment having all the ingredients of civil court judgment and decree.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the Fora created under the CP Act is deemed to be alternative forum to that of civil court and once a person chooses a forum and his claim has been dismissed, on the same cause of action he cannot approach the civil court and the jurisdiction of the civil court in such a situation by implication would be deemed to be excluded and the principle of res judicata would apply. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Undisputedly, petitioner-plaintiff filed a complaint under the provisions of CP Act for the same relief and the same cause of action which was dismissed upto the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and on the same cause of action, the petitioner has filed the suit in question. It would be appropriate to consider the objects and reasons of the CP Act. The CP Act was enacted to provide for better protection