Judgment :- This Writ Petition has been preferred by the first respondent in O.P.No.14 of 2000 on the file of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ramanathapuram to prohibit the second respondent herein from proceeding with the complaint namely, O.P.No.14 of 2000 on the ground that the said tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the petitioner. 2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under : - The petitioner is an agency floated by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) For the purpose of doing baking transactions and their registered office is situated at Chennai. 3. The first respondent, a registered company functioning at Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram District approached the petitioner in May, 1998 for the purpose of financial assistance by way of term loan for developing their dairy farm near Paramakudi and after verification of the documents produced by them, a sum of Rs.78 lakhs was sanctioned by the petitioner and out of the said sanctioned amount, a sum of Rs.35 lakhs has already been disbursed to the first respondent on creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Since the first respondent did not fulfil the initial obligation stated to have been made by them, the petitioner has not disbursed the remaining amount. 4. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent preferred an Original Petition before the second respondent praying for the following reliefs : - "(1) Directing the opposite parties to writ off and wipe off the entire interest amount in respect of the loan amount of Rs.35 lakhs disbursed by the opposite parties; and .(2) Directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.99,980/- along with interest at 18% per annum or to pass an order for adjustment of the said amount in the loan amount of Rs.35 lakhs ; and .(3) directing the opposite parties to have adjustment of the interest amount of Rs.61,150/- paid on 7. 1999 against the loan amount of Rs.35 lakhs; and .(4) directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation for the deficiency in service, negligence In action, poor performance, dereliction of duty on their part ; and .(5) directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- for the discomfort, inconvenience, mental agony caused by the activities of the opposite parties; and .(6) directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-by way of damage for the monetary loss caused by the opposite parties; and .(7) directing the opposite parties to withdraw their notices dated 1. 2000 and 12. 2000 and refrain them from acting in pursuance of the said notices; and .(8) to give necessary directing to the opposite parties restraining them from causing any disturbance and hurdle to the complainant in getting loan from any other financial institution; and .(9) directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant the costs of this action; and .(10) to pass such other order and to give suitable directions deem fit in the circumstances of the petition and thus render justice." 5. The said complaint was taken on file by the second respondent and process was issued to the petitioner for their appearance. At that junction, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition on the ground that the District consumer Redressal Forum at Ramanathapuram has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the petitioner. 6. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it was their case that the District Forum at Ramanathapuram has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint inasmuch as the loan amount was given to the first respondent has also been situated at Ramanathapuram. It was further indicated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was deficient in their service inasmuch as they failed to pay the balance amount, even though a sum of Rs.78 lakhs has already been sanctioned. .7. It is found the pleadings as well as material documents annexed along with the writ petition that in pursuance of the application submitted by the first respondent, a sum of Rs.78 lakhs has been sanctioned by the petitioner and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.35 lakhs has already been disbursed to the first respondent. .7. It is found the pleadings as well as material documents annexed along with the writ petition that in pursuance of the application submitted by the first respondent, a sum of Rs.78 lakhs has been sanctioned by the petitioner and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.35 lakhs has already been disbursed to the first respondent. However the first respondent failed to pay the installments on time and accordingly the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.44,85,908/-against the first respondent and the said suit is pending before the Original Side of this Court in C.S.No.26 of 2001. 8. The grievance projected by the first respondent is in respect of non-disbursement of the loan amount even though a sum of Rs.78 lakhs has been sanctioned on the basis of the project report submitted by the first respondent. It was the case of the first respondent that the District Forum at Ramanathapuram has got jurisdiction in view of the situation of the immovable property at Ramanathapuram, in respect of which a mortgage has been created by the first respondent. 9. I have gone through the complaint preferred by the first respondent before the second respondent Forum at Ramanathapuram. It is found from the complaint in O.P.No.14 of 2000 that it was on account of non-disbursement of the entire amount sanctioned by the petitioner that the first respondent was prompted to file the complaint before the District Forum at Ramanathapuram alleging deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner. 10. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain a complaint. Section 11(1) (c) of the said Act provides that a complaint is maintainable in case the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the jurisdiction of the concerned tribunal. Therefore the word "cause of action" assumes importance so as to get jurisdiction to a Forum constituted under the provisions of Act 68 of 1986: 11. Admittedly the petitioner Corporation is based at chennai and the application for loan was submitted by the first respondent at Chennai and the loan was also disbursed by the petitioner at Chennai. The first respondent had agreed to repay the amount to the petitioner and on their failure to repay the amount, a suit has also been laid against them before this court. .12. The first respondent had agreed to repay the amount to the petitioner and on their failure to repay the amount, a suit has also been laid against them before this court. .12. Merely because the property in respect of which a mortgage has been created is situated at Ramanathapuram, it cannot be said that the District Forum at Ramanathapuram has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of deficiency of service against the petitioner. There should be factual foundation and materials to show that the matter in respect of which the complaint of deficiency was made, has arisen within the jurisdiction of the district forum and only on satisfaction of such matters that the district forum nets jurisdiction to take the complaint on file. It is not as if the. moment a complaint is filed in a District Forum, they are obliged to take the same on file without making an attempt to verify as to whether the said forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as to whether the cause of action or part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the said forum. 13. In case the complaint like the present one is entertained by the forum disregarding the fact that the entire transaction between the parties were at Chennai, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. 14. In any case, the District forum at Ramanathapuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such the order registering the complaint before the second respondent at Ramanathapuram is clearly unsustainable. 15. In T.S. Krishnamoorthy vs. Mercury Chemicals ( 1997 (1) CTC 507 ) His Lordship Honourable Mr, Justice P.Sathasivam (as His Lordship then was) considered the scope of a writ of prohibition and held thus: - " A Writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal for bidding it from continuing with a proceeding therein on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise, Mackonochie vs. Lord Penzane, 1881 A.C. 424 and Halsburs Law of England Vol. 23rd Edition. 14. 23rd Edition. 14. In the other decision namely, Govinda Menion vs. Union of India (A.I.R. 1967 SC 1274), the Apex Court with regard to jurisdiction for grant of prohibition has observed in the following manner : - " The jurisdiction for grant of a writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory and the object of the writ is to restrain courts or inferior tribunals from exercising a jurisdiction which they do not possess at all or else to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words, the object is to confine Courts and tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction within their bounds. It is well settled that the writ or prohibition lies not only for excess of jurisdiction or for absence of jurisdiction but the writ also lies in a case of departure from the rules of natural justice. “….” if the there is want of jurisdiction then the matter is coram non judice and a writ of prohibition will lie to the Court or inferior tribunal for bidding it to continue proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction." 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.