ORAL JUDGMENT R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. :- Since, common question of facts law arise in all these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed y this common Judgment. 2. Rule in all the petitions. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith, in the petitions. 3. In all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the visional Authority under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dismissing the dismissing Application, as well as the Review Application. As far as dismissal of view Application is concerned, the question of interference does not arise as concerned Authority had no jurisdiction to Review its Orders under the Act under which the said Authority is constituted and therefore no fault can be found . the orders dismissing Review Applications. 4. As far as the orders which have been passed by the Revisional thority, the impugned orders apparently disclose that the Revision applications have been allowed against the order passed by the District Forum, solely on the ground that the District Forum failed to consider that before filing. applications before the Consumer Forum, the respondents had filed Civil Suits in the Civil Court, that therefore the proceedings under The Consumers protection Act were not maintainable as the decision in the Civil Suits would be ding on the parties. 5. Plain reading of the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority, loses that the said Authority merely because it was informed that the respondent has filed Civil Suits that it had held that the proceedings District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, were not maintain Revisional Authority has not ascertained as to whether the subject-ma Civil Suits and the cause of action which arose for filing the Civil Suit similarity or relation with the subject-matter and the cause of action for proceedings before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection A 6. Before, holding that the decision of the Civil Court could be bi the parties and that therefore the proceedings under The Consumer Protection Act instituted subsequent to the filing of the Suit, could be held not maintainable, it was necessary for the Revisional Court to ascertain as to the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum and the Civil Suits was one and the same, and, further whether the cause of filing the Civil Suit is also same as that for initiation of the proceeding the Consumers Forum. Without ascertaining these aspects, the impugn having been passed, the same are not sustainable and are liable to be set the matters be remanded to the Revisional Authority to consider the said and to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties. 7. It is also informed that Civil Suits have already been dismissed. necessary for us to deal with this aspect of the matter, and it is open to the to bring all the facts necessary for the decision to the notice of the Re Authority while hearing the matters. Needless to say that the Re Authority will have to take into consideration pendency of all the proc including the Arbitration proceedings, if any, and to ascertain whether the matters and cause of action in relation to both the proceedings are one same before passing appropriate order. 8. In the result, impugned orders are hereby set aside. Matt remanded to the Revisional Authority under the said Act to deal w Revision Applications afresh in accordance with the provisions of law be mind the observations made hereinabove. Rules made absolute according the Petitions with no order as to costs.