JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. In this revision petition, the civil court has already adjudicated the dispute between the parties. We are of the considered view that the view taken by the fora below cannot be faulted. They gave a short shrift to the submissions made by the complainant/revisionist and dismissed his complaint. 2. The facts of this case are these. Sh. S.S.Bhatia, the complainant purchased an Indica Car with commercial number from ICICI Bank in July, 2003. The said vehicle was refinanced by HDFC Bank by transferring the balance amount with ICICI through the loan sanctioned by HDFC Bank in the year 2004. The vehicle was refinanced by HDFC Bank in December, 2005. The petitioner was approached by one, Ms. Priya, a DSA of HDFC Bank in March, 2006. She informed that the existing loan amount of Rs.1,56,000/- against the said vehicle could be enhanced to Rs. 1,95,000/- without any formalities or other charges like pre-closure charges and that difference in loan amount would be increased with increase of percentage of loan amount from 75% to 95% of the estimated value of the vehicle. He was further informed that the loan amount sanctioned was Rs.1,95,000/- and after adjusting the balance amount of Rs.1,33,192.48 in the existing loan account No.2046421, the amount in difference would be credited in his bank account with Punjab National Bank, New Delhi. However, the amount credited in his account was Rs. 46,800/-. 3. The complainant took up the matter with Ms.Priya and Customer Care Centre of HDFC Bank for the residue amount of Rs.13,000/-. Ultimately, a credit of Rs.7,005/- was given in his bank account on 19.06.2006 and the remaining amount of Rs.6,000/- (approx.) was not paid to the complainant. The first EMI was paid. 4. On the contrary, the respondent, HDFC Bank started threatening calls through their collection people for seizure of the vehicle for non-payment of EMIs. Consequently, the vehicle was surrendered on 16.09.2006 to HDFC Bank against their demand notice dated 04.09.2006 for the same. Correspondence to this extent has been placed on record. Ultimately, the vehicle was sold for a sum of Rs.41,000/-, i.e., on a very low price. The vehicle was worth more than Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner has given offer for Rs.1,80,000/-. The petitioner ultimately filed a complaint before the District Forum on 19.02.2007, with the following prayer :- DFC owe me Rs.20,000/- besides Rs.50,000/- as penalties for agony and torture caused to me as per decision of the State Consumer Commission in similar circumstances as appeared in newspaper on 10.01.2007. Copy of the newspaper cutting of 10.01.2007 from The Times of India is enclosed. I pray for appropriate orders in this regard so that I get compensated for the loss and HDFC gets appropriate warning to desist from such wrong practices 5. This is an indisputable fact that the Civil Court has decided this matter pending between the parties. 6. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding :- . Complainant may seek appropriate remedy by placing the relevant material on record before the Civil Court where the case for recovery of loan is admittedly pending trial against him. With these observations, the present complaint stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs 7. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground holding as follows, at paras 9 and 12 of its judgment : . At the very outset, it is very important to note that Civil Suit No.467/09/07 titled as HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. S.S.Bhatia was decided and a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011 along with decree sheet in aforesaid civil suit passed by CCJ-cum-ARC (West), Tis Hazari Court, has been filed by the HDFC Bank, Respondent. It has not been disputed by the appellant/ petitioner S.S.Bhatia that he has filed First Appeal No.766 of 2009 S.S. Bhatia Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., against judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011. 12. Since the Civil Court has also adjudicated upon the issue and has passed a decree in favour of the Bank, which is under challenge by the appellant/complainant in appeal, it would not only be just and proper but also appropriate that the parties seek their legal remedies available to them in Civil Court only. Multiplicity of the proceedings should be discouraged. The parallel proceedings at two different courts would not serve the cause of justice 8. We have perused the judgment of the civil court which has been placed on record. All the issues involved herein were discussed and decided finally, in this judgment. This Commission cannot pass a different judgment. The petitioner submitted that this judgment was obtained after applying influence. He could not produce any evidence to this effect. He has filed an appeal and the civil court is already seized of the matter. Multiplicity of decisions on the same issue are prohibited under the law. The revision petition is meritless and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.