This revision petition has been filed against the order of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No.1163 of 2012. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khandwa, dismissing his consumer complaint no.180 of 2011. The revision petitioners are thus, before this Commission against concurrent orders of the fora below. 2. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on 21.5.2012 and the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on 5.7.2012. Both dismissals are on the ground of the Principle of Res Judicata. 3. The State Commission, in the impugned order of 5.7.2012 has observed that:- “The complainant-appellant had earlier filed a complaint No.152/08 before the District Forum and against the decision of the Forum dated 21.5.2009, the appellant had preferred an appeal to this Commission which was decided by order dated 3.11.2009 passed in appeal No.1254/09, dismissing the complaint. Now the appellant has filed this appeal against the order 21.5.2012 by which the second complaint filed by him has been dismissed on the principles of resjudicata. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. The case already stood decided in earlier proceedings. The appeal is dismissed.” 4. It is significant to note that, while their complaint was dismissed by both fora on the ground that the matter had already been decided in an earlier complaint, the revision petition itself makes no mention of the earlier complaint. It was in this background that this Commission had on 10.12.2012 directed the revision petitioners to place on record certified/true copies of the record pertaining to the earlier complaint. In compliance thereof further records have been filed in this Commission on 11.3.2013. We have heard petitioner Ramesh Chand Rathore in person, on behalf of both complainants. 5. The term ‘res judicata’ literally means a thing or an issue that has been definitively settled by a judicial decision (Black’s Law Dictionary). The principle bars the same parties from litigating a second law suit on the same claim, or any other claim arising from the same transaction or series of transactions and that could have been – but was not – raised in the first suit. Thus, the three essential elements are— a. An earlier decision on the issue, b. A final judgment on the merits, and c. Involvement of the same parties, or parties in privity with the original parties. 6. Perusal of the records show that the revision petitioners had filed complaint No.152/2008 before the District Forum against the respondent/OP State Bank of India, for its refusal to sanction a housing loan. The Consumer Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on 21.5.2009. It held that no case of deficiency of service against the Bank was made out. The appeal against this dismissal was itself dismissed by the State Commission on 3. 11. 2009. There is nothing to show that the decision of the State Commission was reversed in any later proceeding before the National Commission. Evidently therefore, the decision of 3.11.2009 had acquired finality. 7. Subsequently, for reasons best known to them, the complainants chose to file another consumer complaint No.180/ 2011 before the District Forum, Khandwa. From a comparison of the contents of Complaint No. 180/2011 with those of Complaint No. 152/2008, it is noticed that both arise from refusal of the OP/Bank to sanction a housing loan sought by the applicant in 2004. In both, the prayer was to direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs 80,000 paid by the complainants and forfeited by the prospective buyer, pay interest on the margin money of Rs 1,50,000, together with compensation of Rs 5 lakh. Clearly, the second complaint was filed on the same cause of action, arising from the same set of facts, in a dispute between the same parties, which had already been decided by the District Forum and the State Commission in the earlier complaint. 8. We are therefore in full agreement with the decision of the State Commission which has dismissed the appeal and the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The Revision Petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. The order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 1163/2012 is confirmed. No orders as to costs. | 
