Shri Narayan Shukla, J.;— Heard Mr Shakti Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent. By challenging the orders dated 9th of November, 2009 as well as 11th of January,2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (I), Lucknow, Opposite Party No. 1, in Complaint Case No. 1117 of 2009, in fact, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the complaint itself being without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding of the complaint has arisen out of notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as Securitisation Act). The respondent instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuing directions to return his documents as well as the papers of the agreement as he has cleared whole dues, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that still there are huge dues against the petitioner for payment. Thus, he submits that the respondent's complaint is based on concealment of fact. The petitioner also raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), but the District Forum overruled the objection and passed the interim order on 9.11.2009, restraining the opposite parties not to dispossess the complainant from the house in dispute. The said order is under challenge in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court towards the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation Act which bars the Civil Court or other authority to entertain such complaint and take action. Section 34 is extracted below; "Civil Court not to have jurisdiction :- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any auction taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.' He also cited decision as follows; Nihar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 646. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed following question for determination; " Whether the High Court/or this Court has power to transfer a suit pending in the civil court situated in one State to Debts Recovery Tribunal situated in another State? Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Securitisation Act as well as Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Debt Recovery Act) and discussed in detail about their jurisdiction to deal with the case arising out of the Debt Recovery Act. In this case Hon'ble the Supreme Court also discussed about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be ousted in respect of the matters which relates to a debt payable to a Bank or Financial Institutions. He also cited a judgment of this Court i.e. Allahabad Bank Moti Bagh, Faizabad Vs. Bipin Behari Lal Srivastava and others, reported in 2009(27) LCD 1666. In this case this Court considered the several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ultimately held that it is only Debt Recovery Tribunal which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of such matter. In reply without disputing the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has not challenged any proceeding of Recovery of Debt rather he has moved an application to return his record being consumer of the Bank. Therefore, the same is well maintainable. However, upon perusal of the facts I am of the view that substantially the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum to interfere in the proceeding of Recovery of Debt posing as he has cleared of dues, whereas still the loan is due. Therefore, I am of the view that petitioner's complaint is also based on concealment of facts. He has not approached the District Consumer Forum with clean hands. Besides it, I am further of the view that since substantially the matter relates to recovery of debt, the District Consumer Forum lacks the jurisdiction. Therefore, the orders impugned are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. He has not approached the District Consumer Forum with clean hands. Besides it, I am further of the view that since substantially the matter relates to recovery of debt, the District Consumer Forum lacks the jurisdiction. Therefore, the orders impugned are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. However, respondent's right to approach the appropriate forum against the proceeding of Recovery of Debt is not interfered with. _____________