We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. -2- 2. This revision petition filed against the concurrent findings of the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission. The petitioner filed complaint alleging that there was deficiency in service and that the respondents sold a defective tractor to the petitioner. On merits, after considering the relevant material adduced by the parties, the District Consumer Forum, Vidisha held that the petitioner had purchased a old tractor and that the documentary evidence indicated that there was no sufficient evidence against the respondent no.2. It appears that the main contentious issue is whether the petitioner had purchased a new tractor from the respondent no.2 or that the transaction regarding old tractor was entered with the respondent no.2. The District Consumer Forum held that such complex issue could be decided by the Civil Court. The District Consumer Forum also found that the issue was pending before the Civil Court at Vidisha and in view of such circumstances, the complaint was dismissed. Once it is found that the same issue was pending before the Civil Court, the District Consumer Forum restrained itself from giving any finding, inasmuch as it could have been in conflict with the finding of the Civil Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not approached the Fora with clean hands. 3. Considering the concurrent findings, we do not think this is a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. At the same time we may clarify that the observation of the State Commission that the agreement completely demolished the theory of the petitioner having purchased a new tractor in the price of old tractor may not be considered as final and it is subject to the finding of the Civil Court. The revision petitioner is relegated to the Civil Court. The revision petition is dismissed with no cost.