Petitioner is present in person with his Ld. Counsel. 2. The matter is taken up for hearing. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides; Considered; 3. On going through the averment in Para 5 of the Original Complaint (page 56), we asked Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner whether copies of the Notice and acknowledgment described as Annexures C-2 and C-3 in the said Para had been filed alongwith this Revision Petition or not. 4. In response, the Petitioner tenders the Original Advocate’s Notice dated 01.11.2014 received by him alongwith the Original Registered Postal Envelope showing delivery of the said Notice to him. The Original documents are returned to the Petitioner after taking photocopies of the same and placing those on the two Paper Books. 5. Now in his Reply to the Complaint on merits, it is seen from Para 5 (Page 63) as also the statement made in his affidavit in evidence in Para 15 on Page 107, that the Petitioner had altogether denied having received any such Advocate’s Notice, which version comprehensively stands falsified by the fact that the Original Notice alongwith the Registered Postal Envelope have themselves been produced by the Petitioner. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner explains that her client was unable to reply to the aforesaid Notice as he had to rush for the medical treatment of his disabled sister, at the relevant time. 7. From his side, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has drawn attention to the averments made in Para 8 of his Rejoinder, and the statement made in Para 5 of his affidavit in evidence to the effect that payment of Rs.20,000/- to the Petitioner’s father Mr. Satpal Singh was acknowledged by him, of which conversation even a recording was made and placed before the District Forum as Annexure C-4, which, however, has not been filed alongwith this Revision Petition. Further, in Para 4 of its Order, even the Ld. District Forum had taken notice of this fact of the recording. 8. Lastly, the Petitioner has tendered for our perusal a Certificate issued by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph (Since retired from the Hon’ble Apex Court) regarding the excellent character, professionalism and antecedents of his father Mr. Satpal Singh, in order to emphasize that the Complaint was motivatedly filed by the Respondent to damage and ruin his father’s reputation and professional standing. The certificate is seen and returned to the Petitioner. We are of the view that all such submissions made by the Petitioner before us today are extraneous to the case record. It needs to be remembered that the Complaint was filed not against the Petitioner’s father but against the Petitioner himself, so it is illogical that his father’s professional standing could get tarnished as a consequence. 9. Even otherwise, the findings of both the Ld. Fora below on issues of fact in this case are concurrent and against the Petitioner. It is settled law that in its Revisionary Jurisdiction, this Commission can not interfere with such concurrent findings. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.5928 of 2022”, and of this Commission in case of “Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.2588 of 2011” are explicit on this point. 10. To make matters worse, in the present case, the Petitioner’s own version regarding non-receipt of Advocate’s Notice by him has been falsified by his own conduct of producing the Original Notice and Registered Envelope received by him before us. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present Revision Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. | 
