PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short “the State Commission) in Complaint No. 13 of 2016 – Kawal Raj Singh Vs. M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was disposed of. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant filed complaint before State Commission, Chandigarh and during course of arguments for admission purposes, learned Counsel for the complainant made statement before learned State Commission that he is seeking withdrawal of complaint as valuation of complaint is more than Rs.1.00 crore and in such circumstances, he was permitted to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before appropriate forum. Later on, complainant filed another complaint before learned State Commission, UT, Chandigarh which was disposed of by impugned order against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard leaned Counsel for the appellant and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has reduced his claim and has brought it within pecuniary jurisdiction of learned State Commission; even then, learned State Commission committed error in not entertaining complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 5. Perusal of record reveals that earlier complaint No. 57/15 was filed by complainant before learned State Commission, Chandigarh which was withdrawn, as value of complaint was exceeding Rs. 1 crore with liberty to file fresh complaint for same cause of action. Complainant reduced his claim and filed complaint before learned State Commission, UT Chandigarh whereas he should have filed complaint only before State Commission, Chandigarh. Learned State Commission, Chandigarh has not given liberty to the complainant to file complaint before learned State Commission, UT Chandigarh and there was no occasion for the complainant to file complaint before UT Chandigarh. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in not entertaining complaint and has rightly held that it will be better if complaint is filed before the Commission where previous complaint was filed. 6. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed at admission stage. | 
