Heard petitioner in person, who has taken all pains to put on record various citations of the State Commission, National Commission and also the Hon’ble Apex Court. Factual matrix are that alleging deficiency in service on part of respondent for not registering a sale-deed and returning the document unregistered, revenue records having not shown petitioner to be rightful owner of the property, a consumer complaint was filed. District Forum having considered pleadings while accepting claim granted substantial relief to the petitioner. -2- However, aforesaid finding of the District Forum came to be reversed in appeal. From finding of the lower fora it seems that the petitioner having availed avenue for redressal of his grievance before higher authorities which also followed departmental enquiry, took recourse to Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency. Though petitioner had a grouse for failure of the respondent to register sale-deed and also for delay in supply of the copy of the documents, the basic issue which falls for consideration in the proceeding is whether the petitioner had qualified to be a consumer for redressal of his grievance before Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency and this issue has been answered in negative terms by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.P. Goel vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi (1996) 1 SC 839, in which observations were made by Hon’ble Apex Court that the person presenting the document for registration under Registration Act was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (I) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This being so, petitioner having not qualified to be a consumer to maintain complaint with the Consumer Fora, the finding of the State Commission cannot be faulted which dismissed complaint. There -3- being no merit, the revision petition is resultantly dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner however seeks liberty to approach Civil Court. If he so likes, he may do so.