IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6601 of 2010(A) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 58/09 IN OP.188/2008 of K.S.CONSUMER DISP.REDRESSAL,COMN.TVM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PARVATHI R.KURUP, SECRETARY, MURIKKUMPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T 292, MURIKKUMPUZHA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT 2. ABDUL VAHID A, THOPPIL MARHABA, VARIKKU MUKKU, MURIKKUMPUZHA P.O. VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6601 OF 2010 (A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Secretary of a Co-operative Bank. Second respondent had made a deposit of Rs.1 lakh in the Bank. Out of the amount, according to him, Rs.76,940/- is still not refunded. He sought refund of the amount but there was no positive response. Finally he approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram by filing Ext.P1 compliant. That complaint was contested and was disposed of by Ext.P3 order directing payment of the balance deposit amount. Payment was not made. Therefore execution petition was filed which resulted in Ext.P5 order issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 2. So long as Ext.P3 order remains valid, petitioner who is also a respondent in the proceedings is bound to have paid the amount due. That was not done. It was therefore that execution proceedings were initiated, in which the CDRF ordered issue of warrant. The remedy which the petitioner ought to have pursued was to have filed an appeal against Ext.P3 or if maintainable, WPC.No.6601/2010 :2 : against Ext.P5 as well. Having not done that, this court will not be justified in finding fault with the first respondent in having taken action for realizing the amount due under Ext.P3. 3. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal has been filed before the State Commission along with an application for condonation of delay. 4. Taking into account the submission so made and although as at present I do not find any irregularity on Ext.P5, still in view of the pendency of the appeal as above, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 will be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks. In the meantime, it is open to the petitioner to obtain necessary order in the appeal or settle the amount that is due. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.6601/2010 :3 :