Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

              The revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. The main contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that when the petitioner was entitled to get the plot in question as per the policy of the Government, yet, there was considerable delay committed by the respondents in effecting transfer of the plot and, therefore, the petitioner was subjected to unnecessary harassment, inconvenience and financial loss, however, that being another cause of action, his second complaint should have been entertained. 

          We find that the petitioner had filed another complaint seeking transfer of the plot which was allotted to his father. That complaint was allowed by the consumer forum and the plot was transferred in his name. In the earlier complaint, he had not claimed any quantum of damages.  It is, therefore, clear that in the second complaint, he made out a new case which was not allowed by both the fora below.  In view of the concurrent finding of the facts, we decline to entertain the petition while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.