Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking to recover Rs.10 Lacs against the HUNDI.  An objection was taken before the State Commission that the petitioner was already before the Debt Recovery Tribunal regarding the same amount                          and,  therefore,  the complaint was not maintainable.  The State Commission dismissed the complaint without any trial by observing thus:

-2-

     “The LC appearing for the complainant submits that he would withdraw the counter claim before the DRT and would like to continue this case.  Since the matter is already pending consideration before the DRT and it is at the stage of evidence, it I just and necessary to dismiss this complaint reserving liberty to the complainant to work out his rights before the DRT.  In the event if the complainant is allowed to continue with this present complaint before the Commission, there would be a scope for conflicting decision.  Hence we pass the following:

ORDER

     Complaint is dismissed.

     However, reserving liberty to the complainant to work out his rights as observed in the body of the order.

          Appellant being aggrieved filed present appeal before us in which on 26.10.2005, the following order was passed:

          Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.  He submits that he would like to withdraw the counter claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and would like to continue this case before the Consumer Forum.  The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission by an order dated 29.07.2005.

-3-

          ‘Since the matter is already pending consideration before the DRT and it is at the stage of evidence, it is just and necessary to dismiss this complaint reserving liberty to the complainant to work out his rights before the DRT.  In the event if the complainant is allowed to continue with this present complaint before the Commission, there would be a scope for conflicting decision.  Hence, we pass the following:”

          Counsel for the appellant after taking instructions from the representative of the appellant, who is present in the court today, states that the counter claim filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has already been withdrawn and the appellant is not pursuing any other remedy for the claim of the balance of amount.  In view of the fact that the appellant has withdrawn his counter claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with law.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.12.2009.

          The State Commission after affording due opportunity to both the sides to file their pleadings and to lead evidence, shall decide the complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 

-4-

          Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose it of within a period of 6 months from the first date of appearance.

          Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.