Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pursue the matter. In support of his contention that the petitioner school is not being run on commercial basis, he wants to file an affidavit of the concerned trustees / director etc. In our view, the petitioner having not pleaded any such circumstance in the complaint itself, showing that the running of the school in this case is not on commercial basis, we would not think that it would appropriate for this Commission to permit the petitioner to file any affidavit in that behalf. In our view, going by the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material obtaining on record, the State Commission was justified in taking the view which it has taken in the matter holding that the petitioner being engaged in a commercial activity was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We must affirm the said finding of the State Commission. However, since while dismissing the complaint, no right of the petitioner was preserved for pursuing his remedy before the appropriate court / tribunal, we deem it proper to preserve such a right with the petitioner. In the result the revision petition is dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid. In case, the limitation comes in the way of the petitioner school it would perhaps be open for the petitioner school to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision in the case of axmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [1995 (3) SCC 583].