Concurrent proceedings in civil and consumer forums are permissible under the law, and injunctions against prosecution of such proceedings are not valid.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed in I.A No.8/2022 in O.S No.385/2018 by the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The skeletal facts leading to Ext.P5 order are:

(i) The respondent-company has instituted Ext.P3 plaint against the petitioner for recovery of money.

(ii) The petitioner has filed Ext.P1 complaint against the respondent before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( in short ‘Forum’), Thrissur, for the recovery of an amount of Rs.10,25,000/-.

(iii) The Forum, by Ext.P2 order, has restrained the respondent from proceeding against the petitioner until further orders.

(iv) In the above background, the petitioner filed I.A No.8/2022 (Ext.P4) before the court below, to stay further proceedings in the suit.

(v) The court below, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, has dismissed Ext.P4 application.

(vi) Ext.P5 is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.N.L.Bitto, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on admission.

4. The question is, whether there is any illegality in Ext.P5 order?

5. Ext.P3 suit was instituted on 5.9.2018.

6. It is not discernible from the materials on record, as to whether the petitioner has filed any written statement in the suit.

7. The petitioner has filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Forum on 5.7.2020, against the respondent.

8. The Forum has passed Ext.P2 order, restricting the respondent from taking any proceedings against the petitioner until further orders.

9. Now, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application to stay further proceedings in the suit. But, the court below dismissed the application by Ext.P5 order.

10. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the respondent had instituted Ext.P3 plaint prior to the institution of Ext.P1 complaint. The petitioner has not pleaded any set off or raised a counter claim in the suit. Instead, nearly after two years, the petitioner Ext.P1 complaint for recovery of money from the respondent. 11. The petitioner asserts that because more amount is due from the respondent to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 complaint, Ext.P3 suit has to be stayed.

12. A reading of Ext.P2 order would reveal that the Forum has not specifically restrained the respondent from proceeding with the suit, which was instituted prior to Ext.P1 complaint.

13. Even otherwise, Section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , specifically prohibits injunction being granted to any person from prosecuting a proceeding in a court subordinate to it.

14. InEmaar MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh [ (2019) 12 SCC 751 ] interpreting Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Act is in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, there is no inhibition in parallel proceedings being conducted.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court inAnil Paul v. South Indian Bank [ 2022 (2) KLT 169 ], to drive home his contention that the Consumer Forum falls within the expression of ‘court’. Therefore, Ext.P2 order passed by the Forum is binding on the court below. I am afraid that the said contention is untenable, in view of Section 41 (b)

of the Special Relief Act, and because the Civil Court is not subordinate to the Forum. Moreover, Ext.P1 complaint was filed subsequent to the filing of the suit. 16. In the above conspectus, I am of the firm view that both Exts.P1 and P3 can be parallelly tried by the Forum and Civil Court simultaneously and independently.

17. Ultimately, if the petitioner succeeds in Ext.P1 complaint, he can recover such amount from the respondent, notwithstanding the decree to be passed in Ext.P3 suit. But, that does not mean that the suit is to be stayed.

18. It is trite; the exercise of the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep the courts