ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 229 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has restrained the opposite party No. 1 – electricity department not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant till the date fixed in the case. The revisionist moved an impleadment application before the District Forum on 27.08.2012 to implead him as a party in the consumer complaint and vide order dated 31.08.2012, the revisionist was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar with the allegations that he resides in Saraswati Ashram, Near Ramkishan Mission Hospital, Kankhal, Haridwar. He has also alleged that he has spent sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in construction of the house and there was an oral agreement between the complainant and the revisionist that in lieu of the amount incurred in construction of the house, sum of Rs. 1,000/- will be deducted from the rent. It was also alleged that the revisionist has stopped the water and electricity facility, which is causing him a lot of difficulty. The complainant applied with the electricity department for issuing the electricity connection in his name, which was issued on 16.08.2012 and electricity meter was installed, which was protested by the revisionist. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint for restraining the electricity department from disconnecting his electricity connection. 3. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 22.08.2012, restrained the electricity department from disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant till the date fixed in the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has filed this revision petition. 4. The revisionist has assailed the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum on the ground that the complainant is an illegal occupant in the property in question and he has wrongly shown him as tenant of the revisionist and that the order impugned passed by the District Forum is illegal as the same has been passed by the President alone of the District Forum. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and respondent No. 2 – complainant and have also perused the record. 6. Having carefully considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist and after perusal of the material available on record, we may state at the outset that this revision petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The reasons for our above conclusion are that the order impugned passed by the President of the District Forum is an interim order and by the said order, the consumer complaint has not been finally decided as the consumer complaint is still pending before the District Forum and the same has yet to be decided on merit. Learned counsel for the revisionist cited a decision of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in the case of Dr. A. Nirmal Kumar Vs. P.C. Jabin Science College; III (1996) CPJ 64. In the said case, the President of the District Forum sitting alone passed the final order and it was held that the same is against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But, in the instant case, as is stated above, the order impugned is an interim order and the consumer complaint is yet to be finally decided on merit. This apart, there is no bar in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that only one Member of the Bench constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can not pass an interim order. 8. So far the other defence taken by the revisionist that the complainant is an illegal occupant in the property in question and that he is not a tenant of the revisionist is concerned, the said dispute is to be decided by the civil court and the Consumer Fora has no right or jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties. It is also important to mention here that the revisionist has not initiated any proceedings against the complainant in a competent court of civil jurisdiction for his eviction from the property in question on the ground that he is an illegal occupant in the property in question or has unauthorizedly occupied the same. 9. This apart, the powers of the State Commission, while deciding the revision petition, are very limited. 9. This apart, the powers of the State Commission, while deciding the revision petition, are very limited. It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) = IV (2011) SLT 303 = 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed as under: “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion, there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction, conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.” 10. The learned counsel for the revisionist also referred a decision of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in the case of Bengal Metal Industries and another Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd.; III (2005) CPJ 354, in which it has been held that the mere attempt of disconnection, which is not successful, can not be treated as an act which amounts to deficiency in service. This case law does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the instant case, the electricity department has no objection in giving the electricity connection to the complainant. 11. This case law does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the instant case, the electricity department has no objection in giving the electricity connection to the complainant. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for any interference for exercising power under the revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The consumer complaint is pending before the District Forum and the revisionist and respondent No. 1 shall file their written statement before the District Forum and contest the consumer complaint on merit. 12. In view of what has been stated above, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.