Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon'ble President: These are the suo-motu revision petitions. They were taken suo-motu revision in view of the complaint made by Adv.Mr.Kailash Patil for the respondents and on a report submitted by Shri S.R.Khanzode-one of the Judicial Member of State Commission and inquiry conducted and report submitted thereto by Mr.S.B.Pawar, Registrar (Legal). In respect of complaint nos.639/2007 and 1237/2008 the grievance of Adv.Mr. K.Patil was/is that the complaint no. 639/2007 was dismissed by President- Shri B.R.Chaudhari on 06/05/2008 and it was decided in favour of the opponent. However, the President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon –Mr.I.K.Juneja and Members- Mr P.S. Savalkar and Smt Sunita Sonawane has taken money from the complainant and by changing the name of the complainant, the new complaint 1237/2008 was filed and stay was granted and when the grievance was made in this respect, after five months, the case was dismissed for default. After perusal of the papers prima-facie we found that complaint is in respect of same cause of action and bills was filed. We also find that complaint no.1237/2008 was filed by one Mr.Mohammad Umar Mohammad Siddiqqui while the complaint no. 639/2007 was filed by one Mr. Mohad.Khan Abdul Rehman Khan. We are prima-facie of the opinion that it is the same person filing the complaint in two names. The original papers were also produced on record. On perusal of the papers we find that complaint no.639/2007 was filed by the person who was tenant in the said premises while complaint no. 1237/20008 was filed by the owner of the said premises in whose name the electricity connection stands. These are the two persons. Ld.Counsel for Mr.Mohammad Umar Mohammad Siddiqqui has produced on record certain documents. He has produced on record rationing card, passport and certain other relevant documents. He has also produced on record passport of the complainant in complaint no. 639/2007. Thus, on perusal of the documents, we find that these are two different persons, who have filed complaints and it is not the complaint filed by same person. Now, Adv.Mr. K.Patil tried to submit that same person filed these two complaints by changing the name. However, we find that the both the complaints are filed by two different persons and there is no substance in the contention raised by the Adv.K.Patil. These two different complaints are separately drafted by two different advocates. Only subject matter of both the complaints is one and the same. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the complainant in complaint no. 1237/2008 was aware of the earlier complaint and dismissal of the said complaint. Now, Ld.Counsel tried to submit that it is multiplicity of complaint. However, these are two different parties who had filed different litigation at different point of time. It is very difficult for the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to remember in view of the huge pendency of the cases whether similar complaint has been decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. After having pointed out by the Adv.K.Patil, the complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. There is no substance in the grievance made by Adv.K.Patil. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Revision Petition nos. 47 & 48 stands dismissed accordingly. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Original record and proceedings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon be sent back to it. 4. Dictated on dais. 5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules. | 
