IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 334 of 2009()
1. S. JAGANNATHAN @ RAGHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K. VENUGOPAL, ARACKAL, SREE GOKULAM,
... Respondent
2. SUSEELA, W/O.K. VENUGOPAL,
3. THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
4. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM.
6. M/S. C.S. COMPANY ENGINEERING,
7. M/S. C.S. COMPANY (CONSTRUCTION),
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & P. Bhavadasan, J.
—————————————-
W.A No. 334 of 2009
—————————————-
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009
Judgment
Koshy, Ag. C.J.
Writ petitioner filed O.P. No.1055 of 1998 before the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. By Ext.P1 it was disposed of.
Appeals were filed by both parties and fourth respondent remanded the
matter for fresh consideration. On remand, Ext.P2 order was passed.
Petitioner filed an application for getting Ext.P2 executed. At that time, a
writ petition was filed by the petitioner. The above writ petition was
dismissed with costs by Ext.P3 judgment. Appellant (third respondent)
also filed a revision application. The revision application was dismissed
as not pressed, but, on the same day, respondent Nos.1 to 3 obtained an
interim order of stay in an appeal filed by them in 2005. Consequent to
Ext.P5, fourth respondent issued Ext.P6 order recalling the revenue
recovery order which was passed in the execution petition filed by the writ
petitioner for recovering an amount due under Ext.P2. Meanwhile,
attachment of the car belonging to third respondent (appellant herein)
was lifted and on 5.1.2009 an interim order was passed. Appeal with
delay condonation petition filed against Ext.P2 is pending consideration by
the fourth respondent. In that only, Ext.P5 order was passed. The learned
Judge found that if petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 ex parte order, it is for
W.A. No.334/2009 2
him to approach the same forum. The learned Judge directed that
attachment of the car belonging to third respondent (appellant) will
continue for four weeks and meanwhile, petitioner may move before the
fourth respondent seeking variation of Ext.P5. Contention of the petitioner
is that disposal of the petition for varying Ext.P5 may take long time.
Meanwhile, his new vehicle is kept in the open yard. There is no point in
keeping the vehicle in the open yard. In the above circumstances,
attachment of the car shall be lifted if the petitioner furnishes sufficient
security to the satisfaction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kottayam pending consideration of Ext.P4 revision if Ext.P5 order is not
already vacated by the State Forum. Third respondent is directed to
dispose of the revision application as expeditiously as possible, in any
event, within three months from today.
J.B.Koshy
Acting Chief Justice
P. Bhavadasan
Judge
vaa