Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Revision Petition No. 91 / 2010. The revision petition before the State Commission was filed by the opposite party State Bank of India against an interim order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri in CD No. 193 / 2010. By the said order, the District Forum had directed the opposite party Bank not to take any step for recovery of loans / dues from the complainant by taking coercive measures till the complaint was heard and disposed of on merits. 2. It would appear from the record that the respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank in regard to certain loan which the complainant had taken from the bank. The Bank initiated proceedings for the recovery of the loan by taking recourse to the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by filing application under section 13(2) of the Act. It clearly showed that the complaint was filed after the bank had initiated the recovery proceedings. Apprehending adverse order, the complainant approached the consumer forum with the complaint and an application for ad-interim stay order on the ground that no notice of the original petition filed by the bank was received by the complainant. The Bank challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in the revision petition filed before the State Commission. The Bank pleaded that in view of section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction Act, 2002, no other court or tribunal except the Debt Recovery Tribunal or an appellate tribunal was empowered to grant any injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the said Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993. This contention was upheld by the State Commission by holding as under:- n view of the fact that proceeding has already been initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and notice has duly been served on the debtor-complainant, the learned District Forum has gone wrong in entertaining the prayer and injuncting the Bank from taking any coercive step for recovery of the loan. Such an order was without jurisdiction and is not at all tenable. As such, we allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the District Forum in CC No. 193 of 2010. Since on going through the copy of the complaint petition we find that the complaint is filed with allegation of settlement of dues of the opposite party-Bank and the Band has already initiated recovery proceeding and when admittedly the complainant has gone to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as submitted by Mr. Mishra, which is the appropriate forum to take care of the same, we think it just and proper to direct dismissal of Consumer Complaint No. 193 of 2010 pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri, which we hereby do. 3. It may be noted at the outset that the present petition has been filed after a delay of 211 days along with an application for condonation of delay. The reason for this undue delay in filing the present petition is sought to be explained on the premises that the impugned order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the State Commission was challenged by the petitioner before the Honle High Court of Orissa in Civil Writ Petition No. 18677 / 2011 under bonafide legal advice. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.11.2011 thereby granting liberty to the petitioner to file the present petition before this Commission. Assuming that the complainant under some bonafide mistake for filing those proceedings in the High Court of Orissa, which was in fact not maintainable as an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner to challenge the said order of the State Commission before this Commission, still there is undue delay in filing the present petition which was filed only on 6.05.2012. In our opinion, the complainant has failed to explain the subsequent delay in filing the present Petition. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 4. Even then we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and have considered his submissions. From a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case and material obtaining on record, there cannot be denial of the factual position that faced with the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank, the complainant had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank. The District Forum unmindful of the provisions of section 34 of the said Act had passed an adinterim order directing the opposite party bank not to take any steps for recovery of the loan dues from the complainant by taking coercive measures. In our view, to say the least, such an order was clearly without jurisdiction and amounted to the usurping of the jurisdiction which was legally vested in another statutory tribunal under a particular statute. The State Commission has done well in setting aside the said order and dismissing the complaint because once it is found that the complainant had already approached the Appropriate Tribunal which was ceased of the entire gamut of controversy. The complainant could not agitate the said question before a consumer fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Various tribunals constituted under the statute are expected to exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Act under which they have been constituted. There is a clear cut demarcation of the jurisdiction and powers amongst various tribunals and no attempt should be made by one Tribunal to usurp the powers and jurisdiction of other either directly or indirectly. Such a situation may lead to anomalous situation because the orders passed by the two or more tribunals on the same controversy may vary. The question would then arise as to which of the order is binding and valid on the parties. Such a situation has to be avoided in all circumstances. In the case in hand, what we have found is that the District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in it. Rather such a jurisdiction was specifically taken away from any other Court / Tribunal / Forum under section 34 of the Act, 2002. 5. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and is in consonance with the settled legal position and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed on both the counts.