Per Sri A.Hazarath Rao, President:-

Complainant present and through his counsel filed memo to the following effect:

        “it is submitted that during the time of the hearing of the case it is brought to the notice that the respondent name is wrongly mentioned as citi cable instead of ACT digital home entertainment.  Hence in the circumstances the complainant not pressing the case with a liberty to file a fresh case in proper name.

        It is therefore the Hon’ble Court dismiss the case without costs in the circumstances”.     

        In view of the said memo the complaint is dismissed as not pressed.  No costs. 

        The question of granting liberty to file fresh complaint will arise only U/o.23 Of C.P.C.  The provisions of C.P.C have only limited application to Consumer Protection Act as laid down by the High Court of A.P. in WP.No.18735 of 2008 dated 30-01-09 M/s.Sivashakthi Builders and others Vs.The A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and by the Supreme Court in Ethiopian Airlines Vs.G.N.Saboo (2011(8) SCC 539). Under those circumstances, granting of permission did not arise.   

This the 27^th day of February, 2013.

Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.